If you or a loved one has suffered because of an IVC filter, you may have grounds for an IVC filter lawsuit. These filters are known to tilt, fracture, migrate, and even perforate the IVC walls. As a result, if you are having trouble breathing, you should contact an attorney immediately to discuss your legal options. An experienced attorney can help you establish damages and gather enough evidence to win your case.
IVC filters are associated with a greater potential for injury/fatalities. We are particularly interested in Cordis IVC filter claims. The IVC Filters lawsuit is ongoing for too long now. Our law firm receives calls from clients frustrated by their lawyers not doing anything to help them reach an agreement with the government.
IVC Filter Lawsuit | Blood Clot Filter Injuries & Settlements
More than 140,000 lawsuits have been filed by two IVC filter makers. The Cook medical team filed 562 federal and state suits against the hospital. He faces another 8423 cases. Filter lawyers say hundreds are preparing lawsuits. The Federal Court merged the lawsuit against each company into multi district litigation for better efficiency. The Bellwether trial was in place for the disputed lands of the two MDLs as of July 2018. No medical or Bard has proposed global settlements.
IVC filters are prone to fracture
A Bard IVC filter lawsuit has been filed by patients who were injured by the device. This lawsuit applies to the G2 Express, G2, and Recovery filters. The G2 filter was approved by the FDA in 2005 and the Recovery filter in 2002. The company marketed the G2 as a safer alternative. Nevertheless, the filters are prone to fracture, migration, and perforation. Fracture and migration can cause injury to internal organs. According to the FDA, the filters are highly susceptible to these complications and the FDA has issued two official warnings, one in 2010 and one in 2014.
While IVC filters are meant to block blood clots from entering the heart and lungs, they are not perfect. A fractured IVC filter can cause serious medical complications, including migration from the original implant. Many people who have undergone the procedure have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers, claiming that the device was defective and failed to warn them of the risks. The filters are tiny and under considerable pressure inside the vein, so they are prone to fracture. The device should be temporary, but over time, it can become infected, and fragments can migrate.
After 5.5 years, 40% of Bard Recovery IVC filters developed a problem that caused their migration. They migrated into the pulmonary artery and the iliac vein, resulting in severe complications. Even more concerning, the filters were removed prematurely after their placement due to a failure rate of as much as 31 percent. This resulted in severe complications, including pulmonary embolism and kidney failure.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys are eager to win IVC filter cases before judges, but the courts often reject these claims. A major case that tipped the balance in favor of plaintiffs in late 2020 was In re Bard IVC Filter Products Liability Litigation. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 barred the plaintiff’s claims. The decision is important because the plaintiffs’ attorneys hope that these verdicts will be a turning point for the litigation and a global settlement.
In Jeff Pavlock’s IVC Filter Lawsuit, the manufacturer was found liable for the injury to a Houston firefighter. The surgeon implanted an inferior vena cava filter, but it tilted after implantation. This device perforated Jeff Pavlock’s aorta and duodenum and required two additional surgeries. The company that made the Cook IVC filter failed to warn its implanting surgeon of the dangers of these devices.
The company, the Bard, has been accused of causing more harm than good. The IVC filter is known to fracture, tilt, break, migrate, and perforate the IVC wall. As a result, plaintiffs are suing Bard for the medical device’s manufacture. The lawsuits have resulted in settlements of millions of dollars. The manufacturer’s response is an apology for the device’s adverse effects and the company has agreed to pay compensation.
The Bard G2 Filter is the most recent IVC filter lawsuit. Booker, a nurse, had the device implanted in 2007 but discovered in 2014 that it tilted and moved. Multiple surgeries were necessary to remove the filter, and she had to pay a total of $3.6 million to recover from the company. Sherr-Una Booker’s IVC Filter Lawsuit was a bellwether case that resulted in a settlement worth nearly $7 million.
An IVC Filter lawsuit claims that the defective design of the G2 filter has caused it to migrate and fracture. A woman received a G2 filter in 2006 and still has ongoing health problems. She must take anticoagulant medications for the rest of her life. Her lawsuit against CR Bard is one of many pending against the manufacturers of the device. The company denies any responsibility for the defect. IVC Filter lawsuits can be difficult to win, but if you have suffered from a heart attack caused by a defective product, you may be entitled to a large settlement.
You may have noticed symptoms such as low blood pressure, chest pain, or an irregular heartbeat. In severe cases, you might lose consciousness or experience loss of consciousness. If you experience any of these symptoms, contact an attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help you file an IVC filter lawsuit. These attorneys can help you determine your legal options and pursue the compensation you deserve. If you’re suffering from the consequences of an IVC Filter migration, call Catania & Catania, PA today.
There are two main types of IVC filter lawsuits: MDL and class actions. A multidistrict litigation (MDL) combines all individual cases filed in one court to bring more efficient litigation and settlement. The MDL requires test trials, also known as bellwether trials, in order to make the parties reach a global settlement. If there’s a settlement, the individual cases will be sent back to the original court. The IVC Filter lawsuits migrate between the two types of litigation.
They perforate the IVC walls
The alleged dangerous side effects of IVC filters include fracture, tilting, migration, and perforating the IVC walls. Most IVC filter lawsuits are filed against Boston Scientific and C.R. Bard, and the devices’ effectiveness in reducing mortality is also questionable. In fact, many doctors still use the devices despite the safety concerns. But is it worth the risk?
IVC filter litigation is a global issue. There have been numerous verdicts and settlements filed against manufacturers. In the first two bellwether cases, the company won three million dollars from a woman named Tonya Brand. The lawsuit alleges that the device fractured the struts in the IVC walls and perforated the lining. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are eager to win and are confident that the litigation is progressing toward a global settlement.
The manufacturers of IVC filters must have warned consumers about the risks of the devices. If they didn’t, the device could fail, causing serious injury or death. In some cases, the filter will rupture, piercing vital organs and blood vessels. In the worst-case scenario, it could be fatal. Regardless of the cause, a lawsuit can help you recover compensation for the harm IVC filters caused.
If you are considering filing an IVC filter lawsuit, it is important to remember that the majority of IVC filter lawsuits are centralized in multidistrict litigation (MDL). This will allow the manufacturers to evaluate the financial risks of the product and determine the appropriate settlement amounts. The attorneys at the manufacturers’ legal teams will determine what level of compensation is appropriate for the injury.
They rupture the aorta
This case report describes a patient who underwent IVC Filter surgery. The aorta was partially obstructed by the filter, which protruded from the infrarenal aorta into the lumbar spine. Three-dimensional reconstructions of the patient’s aorta show that the filter limbs protruded in a right-lateral fashion. The aorta was then ligated and the filter leg was embedded into the lumbar spine. This procedure was completed successfully and the patient was discharged after two days.
There is a small risk of abdominal aortic pseudoaneurysm, although this complication is uncommon and potentially life-threatening. Although it occurs rarely after IVC filter placement, it represents a unique challenge for surgeons. Historically, this complication required surgical management. In 1997, White et al. performed the first endograft repair. However, many years later, the risk of rupture has risen.
In this case, the limb of the IVC filter protruded into the aorta and penetrated the aorta. The filter had partially occluded the lumen and caused partial thrombosis. Aortic repair was performed. The patient was offered two treatment options: open explantation of the filter or repair of the infrarenal aorta.
IVC filter removal is associated with numerous complications, including fracture of the filter leg and contrast extravasation. In addition to the complications associated with retrieval, the patient may experience traumatic injury to the cava wall. In addition, leg fractures and embolizations have been reported after IVC filter removal. This is an unforeseen, but potentially fatal, complication. If you have had IVC filter surgery, make sure you seek the assistance of an experienced surgeon.
NBC Nightly News Discovers IVC Filter Fractures
A report released today found a number of deaths from another blood-clot filter, the Bard G2 Express, involving 12 people. There were 39 deaths resulting from impurities from patients whose filtration devices had bards installed. At most 27 people died from a blood vessel infection from the Bard Recovery filter. Government data indicates that more than 230 deaths were recorded under the recovery program, which is part of thousands of medical devices manufactured by C.R. Bard. Do blood cell filtering devices in the US cause death or disability?
IVC Filter lawsuits in 2022
By the end of 2024 there were approximately 8,600 claims against the defendant in each Multidistric Litigation against the Bard. Cook IVC Filter MDL is currently undergoing a trial that has over 600 cases – although about 750 have already been decided on. In 2018, Bard announced that the company had been sentenced to $3.6 million in a lawsuit filed by Bard with the DA in the United Kingdom in which Bard is accused. The patient had complications from an internal rupture of her G2 Filtered Filter resulting from her fractures. The trial was first held in a central court and numerous others followed.
Boston Scientific Greenfield IVC Filter Lawsuits
Greenfield filters from Boston Scientific are also cited as a plaintiff. There hasn’t ever been any MDL involving Greenfield filter technology, however, prosecutors filed a single lawsuit to recover them. The firm recalled more than 18,000 greenfield filter units. It said a piece could fall apart and potentially cause vascular embolism. Earlier in 2015 Boston Scientific released an omission from its Greenfield filter line, which caused serious blood vessel injury and resuscitation in the. A 2016 study in the journal Cardiovascular Diagnosis & Therapies examined IVC filter complications, such as perforated incomplete openings, migration, and fractures.
Bard IVC Filter Verdicts and Settlements
The Ninth Circuit ruled that a Georgia woman’s case deserved $3.7 million. In addition, she is being paid $16 million in real damages in addition to $23 million in damages. A judge will award monetary damages — or monetary sanctions — for causing a defendant serious injury to himself. Bard executives knew that a dangerous drug had been sold for a while and kept marketing it unadvertised without warning doctors. Bard won two previous court cases involving plaintiff Doris Jones. Jones was granted Bard Eclipse Filter in 2010.
Cook. Medical verdicts
Cook has received a double verdict. The second was $3M in Brand v. Cook Medical. January 2019. In December 2012, the judicial panel said the evidence should have been rejected. In addition, the precedential value remains in Cook Medicals IVC filter settlement calculations. The judge’s decision on the firefighter was based on a $1.2 million case against Cook et al. His Celect inferior vagina filter was taken off. COVID slows the progress in the process. But Cook will be back fighting against the Celect filters.
$2.55 million Bard Recovery IVC Filter Award
A Texas judge ordered the manufacturers of Bard Recovery $2,197892. The plaintiff also had $31,2268 owed for medical expenses and future medical expenses. May 30, 2022: The Bard Recovery IV filter from Ms. Wright has been implanted to prevent pulmonary clots causing her breathing problems. This IVC filter has remained in use for nearly twelve decades now. In January 2018 Wright suffered from blood clots in her lungs because her iv filters were cracked and had caused debris from her heart and lung.
$926,000 Bard Eclipse IVC Filter Award
In May 2021, a federal Oregon court ruled Justin Peterson was in a critical state of critical bruising and fractures. Justin went to emergency surgery to remove the filter from his intestines, remove blood, and repair damaged arteries. Bard Eclipse IVC filters were commissioned in 2010 but Justin suffered fatal complications ten years on. During her time at IVC Filters, she served as the litigation committee that supervised bellwether jury trials. How does a company sell blood stains? CBS News.
Manufacturer knew of IVC Filter Deaths
In 2015 NBC News linked bard ICVC filters to 37 fatalities. The report stated bard executives knew about the potential risks for years but did nothing. In 2004 NBC obtained an investigation commission of Bard that determined that Bard recovered VC filters that were more likely to fail than other filtering devices. The report also stated that executives would make copies available to anyone with access to them without revealing anything. Tell me the truth?
$33.7 million Argon/Rex Option IVC Filter Award
Several hundred thousand were awarded as part of a trial in Pennsylvania’s lower vena cava filter mass tort case. In an investigation conducted by the court of appeals, a jury of three judges found a defective filter device. The jury commenced its first trial on October 8. Tracy Reed-Brown filed the lawsuit in February 2017 alleging invasive and removable Vena cava filters that were placed on the Vena cava caused severe injuries.
$3.6 million Bard IVC Filter Award
The Phoenix Federal Court has awarded Bard $3 million in compensation for the crime. The IVC filter in Sherri Bookers heart fell and she required urgent medical intervention. The open heart surgeon removed parts of the rupture, but there remains fragments lodged in her body. 80% of the resulting damages have already been attributed to Bard, who faces punitive damages. There were over 4,000 IVC filter cases filed by the Bards.
Greenfield filter lawsuit
Boston Scientific is suing the manufacturer for the distribution of potentially dangerous devices. It is true that Greenfield’s safe use was merely a test for its safety but was approved in 510K form. Unsurprisingly, this filter is linked to an unknown but significant risk. Several instances of severe injury occurred as implants were smashed, moved or fragmented in patients.
Cordis Optease litigation
Many victims of traumatic experiences filed a lawsuit with Cordis Corporation after they had been injured. At least 23 case filings have been filed across the nation. Previously the Cordis Optease filters were not available to consumers. They say the results showed most of the studied studies didn’t adequately assess fracture risk from using this device.
Do you have a Vena Cava IVC filter?
This filter prevents blood clots from entering the vital organs. Some patients undergoing IVC filters claim the filters have broken up and moved to another area of the body where they may cause potentially life-threatening IVC filter problems.