IVC Filter Lawsuit

IVC filters are small, cage-like devices that are inserted into the inferior vena cava to capture blood clots and prevent them from reaching the lungs.

The inferior vena cava is the main vessel returning blood from the lower half of the body to the heart.

IVC filters are frequently placed in patients at risk for pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lungs) when anticoagulant therapy cannot be used or is ineffective.

IVC filters are designed to be permanent implants although some of these devices may have the option to be removed.

Since the introduction of IVC filter in 2005, the FDA has received thousands of adverse reports involving these filters. Specifically, it was reported that the IVC filters fragment and embolize in the body.

The FDA has received reports of adverse events and product problems associated with IVC filters.

Types of reports include device migration, filter fracture, embolization (movement of the entire filter or fracture fragments to the heart or lungs), perforation of the IVC, and difficulty removing the device.

Some of these events led to adverse clinical outcomes such as:

• Death
• Cardiac tamponade (fluid build up)
• Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
• Emergency removal of a device
• Hemorrhage
• IVC filter migration
• Perforation of tissue, vessels, and organs
• Pulmonary embolism
• Respiratory distress
• Severe Pain
• Shortness of breath

Unless there is a very good reason to keep the IVC filter in place, the FDA now recommends the removal of retrievable IVC filters.

According to a safety communication posted by the FDA in August of 2010, IVC filters are intended for short-term placement and have caused risks when left in long-term including lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization, and IVC perforation.

The FDA’s original safety alert was then followed up by a decision analysis published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery: Vein and Lymphatic Disorders in October 2013.

Research studies confirm the problems with the retrievable IVC filters.

A 2013 research study published in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) looked at the filter’s failure.

It reviewed medical records of a level 1 trauma center for the indications, complications, and management of the IVC filters.

Despite FDA warnings, physicians were not removing the filters.

Researchers discovered only 58 out of 679 (less than 10%) retrievable IVC filters inserted were actually removed.

Other results discovered a majority of the filters remained in patients longer than medically necessary with the following results:

• 3 percent failed attempts at removing the filters
• 8 percent had venous thrombotic events.
• Approximately 25 of those events were pulmonary embolisms

As of 2012, it is estimated that 259,000 filters were deployed and the market value of vena cava filters continues to increase despite FDA warnings.

Today, the IVC filter market is worth $190 million and is growing.

A 2016 study published in the American College of Cardiology cited evidence that found that IVC filters were being over-used by doctors.

The study concluded that doctors were using IVC filters for a variety of medical purposes, despite the lack of information regarding appropriate use and surveillance of the filters.

The study also found retrievable rates to be lower than expected.

The FDA first released a public safety communication in 2010, warning of possible adverse health events associated with long-term IVC filter use.

In 2014, the FDA released a second public safety communication, warning of further adverse health events associated with long-term IVC filter use, as well as problems with specific products.

The safety communication explained that the FDA had concerns that retrievable IVC filters, purposed for temporary use, are not always removed within the appropriate time span.

“For patients with retrievable filters, some complications may be avoided if the filter can be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided.”

The FDA recommends that retrievable IVC filters be removed between the 29th and 54th days after implementation for patients who risk pulmonary embolism.

In 2013, the FDA announced a recall of all Cordis retrievable IVC filter manufactured citing an issue with the device’s labeling and implant instructions.

Around 33,000 devices were recalled, all of which were distributed between May 6, 2010, and April 2, 2013.

C.R. Bard Warning Letter

In 2015, C.R. Bard came under fire after an FDA investigation found that the manufacturer was producing a certain IVC filter device removal system without marketing clearance or approval.

As a result, the FDA sent a warning letter to C.R. Bard notifying the company that they were in violation and subject to penalization.

TorHoerman Law is currently pursuing IVC filter lawsuit cases for the following injuries:

• Filter fracture
• Filter migration
• Perforation of the vein
• Embedment into organs/tissue
• Death

TorHoerman Law is currently pursuing IVC filter lawsuit cases for patients who used retrievable filters manufactured by the following companies:

• R. Bard
• Cook
• Cordis
• Argon

If you believe that you have suffered one or more of the injuries mentioned above because of an IVC Filter manufactured by one the companies mentioned above, and you want to participate in the IVC filter lawsuit, contact the offices of TorHoerman Law today. 

It is up to the manufacturer to satisfy safety concerns using a combination of testing and trials.

However, many lawsuits have been filed claiming that the manufacturers of these filters have not satisfied safety concerns and, instead, continue to move forward with sales of these filters.

Thousands of lawsuits have already been filed and continue to move forward against C.R. Bard, Cook, Cordis and Argon IVC filter manufacturing companies.

TorHoerman Law is currently accepting IVC filter lawsuit cases on behalf of individuals who suffered injuries due to IVC filters manufactured by C.R. Bard, Cook, Cordis, or Argon.

A panel on multidistrict litigation decided that it would be appropriate to consolidate IVC filter lawsuit cases.

Currently, IVC filter lawsuit multi-district litigations (MDLs) are being consolidated in courts in Indiana (Cook) and Arizona (C.R. Bard).

A number of individuals who received C.R. Bard IVC filters have filed three separate class-action lawsuits against the manufacturer in California, Pennsylvania, and Florida courts, claiming that because their devices have migrated (but not fractured) they should be compensated for medical monitoring.

These lawsuits cite Bard’s negligence, misrepresentation, and data concealment.

Plaintiffs named in the IVC Filter MDLs, as well as other individual IVC filter lawsuit cases, alleging that defects in the design of some retrievable IVC filters increase the likelihood of certain adverse health events.

There are more than 6,000 IVC filter lawsuits pending in federal court.

These pending lawsuits claim that the adverse health events associated with retrievable IVC filters are the result of the manufacturer’s negligence, defective design in the product, manufacturing defects, failure of the manufacturer to adequately warn consumers of risks, breach of implied warranty, and misrepresentation of the product by manufacturers and their subsidiaries.

Before filing an IVC Filter Lawsuit, you should first do everything in your power to mitigate injuries & damages.

This includes seeking proper medical treatment and secondary medical opinions if necessary, following your doctor’s orders, and actively acting to minimize the damages associated with your injuries.

You should also familiarize yourse if with the civil litigation process so you know what to expect of your IVC filter lawsuit.

Your state’s statute of limitations bars the amount of time you have to take legal action after your injury, so do not hesitate to contact a lawyer and begin the process as soon as possible.

Contact an IVC filter lawyer today to get started in filing your IVC filter lawsuit.

If you or a loved one has suffered an injury resulting from an IVC filter, contact an IVC filter injury lawyer from TorHoerman Law.

Hiring a personal injury lawyer to represent you can greatly increase your likelihood of a successful IVC filter lawsuit.

Your IVC filter injury lawyer will gather evidence to prove that liability for your injuries falls on the manufacturer.

They will also help you calculate damages  to determine what compensation you should expect from your injury.

Your IVC filter lawyer will navigate the complexities of a product liability lawsuit to ensure that you have the strongest case to argue your claim and get a successful result.

Contact an IVC filter lawyer from TorHoerman Law today to learn how we can serve you.