Request Legal Help Now - Free


More IVC Filter Plaintiffs Come Forward

. By
Phoenix, AZMore plaintiffs alleging they were harmed by the use of inferior vena cava filters continue to come forward, as the multidistrict litigations for two IVC filter makers continue to grow. The plaintiffs allege they suffered serious IVC filter complications because the filters were defectively designed and not properly tested to ensure safety.

And while the lawsuits continue to grow, some critics question whether the IVC filters are effective at all. If they are effective, then for some patients the side effects might be worth the risks, but if they are not effective, they may be putting patients at an unnecessary risk of serious side effects.

Those side effects reportedly include a risk of the filters fracturing and/or migrating from the site of their implantation. Of concern are temporary filters that are implanted to help a patient overcome a short-term risk of blood clots - from a car accident or surgery, for example - but that are not removed in a timely manner. Failure to remove a temporary filter puts the patient at risk of IVC thrombosis, a rare but deadly condition. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), temporary filters should be removed between 29 and 54 days of implantation, if the risk/benefit profile deems removal of the device favorable.

IVC filters are implanted into the inferior vena cava of patients who cannot tolerate anticoagulant medications or other therapies designed to prevent blood clots. The filters have legs that trap blood clots and prevent them from causing pulmonary embolisms. But some filters allegedly have a risk of fracturing, migrating or perforating the patient’s veins or internal organs.

Making the situation worse are allegations from NBC News (9/3/15) that CR Bard had in its hands a confidential study that suggested the company’s Recovery filter had an increased risk of death, fracture and movement over filters made by other companies. Despite this, Bard reportedly continued selling the Recovery for three years. The same NBC report notes that 27 deaths and 300 non-fatal events in 10 years have been linked to the Recovery filter.

Patients say they were not properly warned about the risks associated with the medical devices. As of May 16, 2016, there were 527 lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL 2641 (In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation), up from 93 in March. There were also 383 lawsuits consolidated in MDL 2570 (In Re: Cook Medical, Inc, IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation), up from 289 in March.


IVC Filter Legal Help

If you or a loved one have suffered losses in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a defective products lawyer who may evaluate your IVC Filter claim at no cost or obligation.


Please read our comment guidelines before posting.

Note: Your name will be published with your comment.

Your email will only be used if a response is needed.

Are you the defendant or a subject matter expert on this topic with an opposing viewpoint? We'd love to hear your comments here as well, or if you'd like to contact us for an interview please submit your details here.

Click to learn more about

Request Legal Help Now! - Free