fbpx

IVC Filter Lawsuits

The heart is arguably the most crucial organ in the human body, and one would expect any implants that could adversely affect it to be vetted thoroughly before being introduced to the public. 

Also, if this device were to have a disproportionate risk of breaking compared to previous models or competing brands, a manufacturer had an ethical and legal obligation to reveal this information. 

However, an NBC News report would suggest that IVC filter manufacturer C. R. Bard failed to meet this obligation, even after discovering their device’s grave threat to patients’ health for years. 

DISCLAIMER: By selecting 'Yes' and clicking 'Submit', you agree to share your information with our legal advertising partners, and for them to contact you. You are not forming an attorney-client relationship and you are under no obligation to retain or hire the attorney that may contact you. The information you've provided above is voluntary and you are granting permission to share that information with our participating legal network because you're seeking legal assistance with this specific matter. Please see our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy links for further information, located at the bottom of our website.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

The heart is arguably the most crucial organ in the human body, and one would expect any implants that could adversely affect it to be vetted thoroughly before being introduced to the public. 

Also, if this device were to have a disproportionate risk of breaking compared to previous models or competing brands, a manufacturer had an ethical and legal obligation to reveal this information. 

However, an NBC News report would suggest that IVC filter manufacturer C. R. Bard failed to meet this obligation, even after discovering their device’s grave threat to patients’ health for years. Multiple lawsuits have been brought against manufacturers since the release of these investigations, with many bellwether and individual cases resulting in multi-million dollar settlements.

The Potential Dangers of IVC Filters

IVC (Inferior Vena Cava) filters are blood clot-catching devices. Vascular surgeons and Interventional Radiologists implant them into patients preventing life-threatening pulmonary emboli. 

However, lawsuits against this device’s manufacturers show that some models have a hidden risk. 

They have a design flaw that makes them susceptible to breaking and migrating in the body, leading to severe damage to vital organs. Issues include detachment, tilting, perforation, and fracture. 

Here’s a list of potential complications of patients living with IVC filter implants: 

  • Device Fracture 
  • Blood Clots 
  • Filter Migration 
  • Severe to fatal damage to organs such as the lungs and heart
  • Removal is challenging to impossible 

According to the lawsuits members of the Public have brought against IVC filter manufacturers, removing these devices after their failure is extremely challenging. 

So, many people have also included continued mental stress in their claims. The thought of having a faulty device in them and being unable to remove it due to the high risk of complications has left them distraught.

How IVC Filters Function

The Inferior Vena Cava is the body’s largest vein responsible for delivering deoxygenated blood to the heart. Doctors insert IVC filters in this vein via incisions in the neck or groin. 

By design, these devices help prevent blood clots from reaching the lungs. They’re cage-like and have spindly legs serving as a brace and a clot trap.

Manufacturers May Have Withheld IVC Filter's Dangers From the Public

Health corporations are supposed to put their customers ahead, and surely with a crucial device such as the IVC filter, one would only expect manufacturers hold such ethics in the highest regard. 

So, the world was perplexed when information came to light that they may have intentionally hidden the dangers accompanying its usage from the Public. 

NBC News revealed investigation findings linking 27 Bard Recovery manufacturers, C. R. Bard. 

They managed to get hold of a report commissioned by the latter. This document would suggest that this health conglomerate knew of their new IVC models. 

This manufacturer knew their device had an alarming high potential to fracture and migrate in a patient’s body compared to competitors’ units. A scenario that could lead to severe and sometimes fatal injuries. 

This report will reveal that this manufacturer refused the commissioning doctor’s advice to perform further research or recall these potential time bombs. 

  1. R. Bard’s “Bard Recovery” has gone on to cause at least 27 deaths, with numerous others injured due to complications from their IVC Filters. 

Top IVC Filter Lawsuits in History — Timelines

Over 14000 cases have existed, with settlements going beyond $41 million since 2018. 

For legal efficiency, a federal panel had to combine claims into multidistrict litigations. 

Here’s an overview of some of the top IVC filter lawsuits in history and their timelines: 

Cook Medical Trials 

  • November 2017

On this day, following a three-week trial, a federal jury in Evansville passed a unanimous verdict in favor of Cook Medical, giving them their first bellwether trial win. 

Bellwether trials are test cases intending to try a widely contested problem, such as the IVC filter lawsuits. It helps streamline the judicial proceedings instead of having to hold multiple series of trials for each claim. 

The court used bellwether cases’ outcome to shape the ruling process on the remaining lawsuits. 

  • March 2018

Another ruling in favor of Cook Medical. Despite the court date being set for April 30, 2018, the preceding judge would dismiss the lawsuits on the grounds of exceeding the statute of limitation. 

The plaintiff had taken too much time from receiving their injury to filling a case. 

The statute of limitation was one year and a day. 

  • May 2018

Jeff Pavlock wins his claim against Cook Medical at the court, with the Huston jury awarding him a $1.2 million settlement verdict. 

Jeff, a firefighter, claimed that his IVC filter, a Cook Celect, broke and migrated, causing damage to his small intestine and aorta. 

  • February 2019

Tonya Brand wins the third bellwether trial against Cook Medical, with the jury awarding her a $3 million settlement. 

C. R. Bard Trials 

Lawsuit Payouts 

  • 2013

In 2013, C. R. Bard reached an agreement with the prosecution side in the case of Lisa Davis vs its brand. She had filed a lawsuit two years prior because their G2 IVC Filter had led to her continuing heart issues and injuries. 

According to her, this device broke, with fragments finding their way down to her heart. The terms of the settlement remain undisclosed. 

  • 2014

According to court records, couple Kelly and Chris Vlasvich were close to settling with C. R. Bard in December 2014. However, the duo will go on to request dismissal in January 2015. 

The Vlasvichs had filed a case against C. R. Bard, claiming that Kelly sustained severe injuries after using their Bard G2 model IVC filter. 

They disclosed that this device broke, migrated, and injured Kelly’s lungs and heart. 

  • 2015 

The Nevada Federal Court would preside over the case of Kevin Phillips. Involved parties would settle the lawsuit for an undisclosed fee ten days after the trial. 

The prosecution claimed that the company’s IVC filter broke inside Kevin, perforating his heart. 

Bellwether Trials 

  • March 30, 2018
  1. R. Bard loses their first IVC filter bellwether lawsuit, with prosecution’s client Sherr-Una Booker receiving a $3.6 million settlement due to injury claims. 

$1.6 million for actual damages and a further $2 million for punitive damages. 

  • June 1, 2018
  1. R. Bard gets a favorable ruling on their next and second IVC bellwether lawsuit. This case involved Doris Jones, with the plaintiff claiming that a fractured piece of their device blocked her pulmonary artery. 

Due to the delicate situation and area where the fragment was lodged, removing the piece was impossible. 

However, the jury would rule that C. R. Bard had given doctors sufficient warnings in such a scenario. 

  • July 12, 2018

Judge rules in favor of C. R. Bard on the grounds of exceeding the statute of limitation. 

This lawsuit was the third bellwether trial. 

  • September 2018 

After reaching trial, the jury passes a verdict in favor of C. R. Bard after a day of deliberation. 

  • May 2019 

The fifth C. R. Bard IVC lawsuit doesn’t reach trial, with involved parties agreeing to an undisclosed out-of-court settlement. 

Other IVC Filter Lawsuits 

Rex Medical lost a lawsuit to Tracy Reed-Brown, with the jury awarding her a $33.5 million settlement, the highest in IVC lawsuit history. 

She claimed their device, implanted in her in 2010, damaged her renal vein, aorta, and pancreas. 

Tracy Reed-Brown received $3.4 million for actual damages and $30.3 million for punitive damages. 

The FDA's Stance on IVC Filters

Investigations reveal the Food and Drug Administration sent a warning mail to C. R. Bard in 2015 for their negligence in properly reporting customer complaints and device malfunctions to the agency. 

One of the complaints involved the death of a patient due to complications from their filter’s failure. 

This letter also revealed that C. R. Bard sold non-approved IVC filter retrieval devices. 

The FDA recommends that patients remove their IVC filters 29 to 54 days after implantation. 

The agency’s research suggests that these devices pose more threat to life after this period than pulmonary or cardiac embolisms, the condition manufacturers designed these filters to guard against. 

Over One Hundred and Thirty Thousand IVC Filter Recalls

2005 to 2019 saw several massive recalls on IVC filters. 

Here’s a timeline of some of the most significant actions. 

  • The 2005 Greenfield Recall (18,000 IVC Filters) 

Recalled due to the risk of patients suffering a pulmonary or cardiac embolism and reports of potential detachment. 

  • The 2013 Cordis OPTEASE Recall  (33,000 IVC Filters) 

Recalled due to the possibility of being implanted wrongly. 

  • The 2015 Bard Denali Recall (1,183 IVC Filters) 

Recalled due to a labeling change requirement.

  • The 2019 Gunther Tulip Recall (91,731 IVC Filters) 

The largest IVC recall by a single manufacturer. 

These IVC filters were recalled due to an update on usage instructions. 

Possible Injuries to Sue for in IVC Lawsuits

Here are some possible injuries, according to IVC filter claims, that receivers can sue for after encountering complications from this device:

  • Filter migration 
  • Removal complications
  • Device detachment 
  • Device fracture 
  • Fatality 

Manufacturers and IVC Filter Models Appearing in Lawsuits

  1. R. Bard and Cook Medical have borne the brunt of IVC filter lawsuits, with both conglomerates having over 14,000 cases to their names. 

However, these companies aren’t the only brands appearing in bellwether trials. 

Here’s a list of these manufacturers and their accompanying IVC filter models. 

C. R. Bard 

  • Bard Recovery 
  • Denali
  • Eclipse
  • G2 
  • G2 Express (G2X)
  • Meridian 

Cook Medical 

  • Gunther Tulip
  • Celect

Cordis 

  • OptEase 
  • TrapEase

Boston Scientific

  • Greenfield 

Argon

  • Gunther Tulip

ALN

  • Optional

IVC Filters Today

Research in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine reveals that despite the usage of IVC filters plummeting since the FDA’s announcement about its high risk, many people still use these implants. 

The US has 13 times as many IVC filter receivers as five large EU countries. Experts recommend that only people in unique and adverse situations should get these implants owing to the high risk of complications. For example, patients with active bleeding.

Questions Lawyers Might Ask IVC Filter Recipients

Recipients who have sustained injuries due to their IVC filters failing and wish to proceed with a lawsuit against manufacturers can expect lawyers to ask the following questions: 

What Complications Did You Experience Using This Device?

Attorneys want to know about your experience with an IVC filter and its complications. 

Receivers who have sustained organ injuries, cardiac or pulmonary emboli, challenging removals, or other severe conditions due to device perforation or fracture may be eligible to file a case. 

When Did You Get Your IVC Implants? 

The date you received your implants is vital, with most prosecution clients having implanted their devices as early as 2003. 

Attorneys will most likely require your medical records to review the accurate date of the implantation procedure. 

What IVC Filter Problems Have You Experienced Using This Device? 

Manufacturers recalled over 130,000 IVC filters for various reasons, including failure to open, migrating in patients’ bodies, perforation, or tilting. 

Who’s the Manufacturer of Your IVC Filter? 

Cook Medical and C. R. Bard are the two biggest manufacturers in most IVC filter lawsuits. 

Other brands have also come under fire for their filter models, including Boston Scientific, Argon, ALN, and Cordis. 

If you don’t know which company manufactured your implant, consider requesting this information from your surgeon. 

How Have IVC Filter Complications Affected Your Daily Routine? 

Sustaining severe injuries to vital organs can change your daily life leaving you with physical and emotional discomfort. 

Your attorney can help ascertain the degree to which complications from a malfunctioning IVC filter have impacted your life.

Final Thoughts

Many of the IVC filter lawsuits are from unrecalled models. 

Most people who filed claims against manufacturers didn’t remove their devices within 29 to 54 days as advised by the FDA or were unaware of this recommendation. 

Attorneys can help you file a claim if you or a family member are an IVC filter recipient and suffered severe injuries due to device migration, perforation, tilting, or fracture. 

You can contact a reputable law firm and receive a free professional case evaluation on your eligibility and status.

Scroll to Top

See If You Can File

DISCLAIMER: By selecting 'Yes' and clicking 'Submit', you agree to share your information with our legal advertising partners, and for them to contact you. You are not forming an attorney-client relationship and you are under no obligation to retain or hire the attorney that may contact you. The information you've provided above is voluntary and you are granting permission to share that information with our participating legal network because you're seeking legal assistance with this specific matter. Please see our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy links for further information, located at the bottom of our website.

Nationwide Report™ and it’s brands including Valiant Advocates are not a law firm, do not provide any kind of legal or medical advice, explanation, or recommendation to any of its readers about possible legal defense, rights or strategies. The sole basis for the inclusion of the participating lawyers or law firms is the payment of a fee for exclusive geographical advertising rights. By participating and submitting your request, you agree to share your information with us and our partners, and for them to contact you.

Request an Accident Report