Need an IVC Filter removed? Compensation is available
If you had an IVC Implant and needed to have it removed due to breakage or malfunction, or suffered injuries such as perforated organs, you will qualify for financial compensation.
How Can I Get Compensation for my IVC filter injury?
Our Attorneys are filling IVC Filter lawsuits against Cook Medical and C. R. Bard after their dangerous medical device injured thousands of patients. The IVC Filter device has been known to break and malfunction causing death after metal fragments perforated organs.
Research published in 2012 in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology provided evidence showing that up to 40% of the devices fractured within 5.5 years since they were implanted. In several instances, the “metal cage” migrated after being improperly placed, forcing the patient to undergo multiple surgeries in order to retrieve it.
If you had or need your IVC Filter removed compensation is available. Lawsuits are settling quickly, with the average settlement being well over $100,000. Let Our Law Firm help you today
What is an IVC Filter?
An inferior vena cava filter (IVC filter) is a small medical device shaped like a cage that traps blood clots in order to prevent them from reaching the lungs and heart. It is implanted in patients who are at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) or suffered from deep vein thrombosis (DVT), severe trauma or prolonged immobilization. IVC filters are placed within the inferior vena cava, one of the largest blood vessels that return blood from the lower body to the heart and lungs.
Why do IVC filters break?
The longer the IVC filter is kept inside the body, the higher is the risk for it to break or malfunction, eventually. The device has never been meant to be used for more than 54 days and is not robust enough to resist long-term placement. After that time fragmentation and embolization often happen because constant blood flow will slowly wear down the filter until it breaks.
the Meds Lawsuit Group, made it simple and easy to file for the medical damages their attorneys really care about getting to know who you are and your injury.
Passionate About Clients Erin Wu 5
Bard conceals the truth about their IVC filters’ unreliability
C.R. Bard tried to conceal the truth about their filters’ unreliability. Desperately trying to prove their device’s safety, in 2004 the pharmaceutical company hired Dr. John Lehmann, a medical a consultant. The independent physician reviewed all the evidence and found that the device was exceptionally dangerous when compared to similar products.
Instead of recalling their product from the market, the New Jersey-based company decided to ignore the doctor’s warning and bury the report. An investigation by NBC News later found that the documents submitted by Bard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to obtain market approval for the IVC filters, did not mention the risks associated with the devices. In a blatant attempt to deceive the regulatory agency with a “flatly untrue” report, the company forged Lehmann’s signature cheating thousands of patients.
Cook IVC Filter Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
It’s common during product liability cases to centralize a large number of disputes as part of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). In October 2014, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred more than 100 IVC Filter lawsuits against Cook Medical from 11 districts to the Southern District of Indiana under the supervision of Honourable Judge Richard L. Young.
Is IVC filter consided a Class-action lawsuit
To date, three IVC filter class-action lawsuits have been filed against Bard in California, Pennsylvania, and Florida courts. The company is accused of negligence, concealment, and misrepresentation of data concerning the safety of the G2 and G2 Express filters. Plaintiffs ask for compensation for the medical expenses they have to face continuously. Constant medical monitoring is, in fact, required even in those instances where the device did not fracture or migrate. The three class-action suits were filed in 2012 by plaintiffs Janet Roberts, Eula Huff, Sandra Lorenz, and Samantha Bouldry in Palm Beach County; by Shantel Brown and Goldie Brown in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia; and by David DeLeon and Richard Gonzalez in Los Angeles. All the claims are still pending since no court has yet approved the formation of a class.
Article written by: Dr. Claudio Butticè, Pharm.D. and designed by Luke Kist