IVC filters can cause migration, fracture, perforation, tilting, and device retrieval failure injuries. These IVC filter complications can cause heart attacks, pulmonary embolisms, torn arteries, and other major injuries. Many consumers whose IVC filters moved or broke after surgical implantation suffer heart attacks, pulmonary embolisms, torn arteries, and other major injuries. Any patient exhibiting these health complications after surgical implantation can seek justice and compensation through an IVC filter lawsuit.

Due to the large number of injured IVC filter patients across the U.S., a multi-district litigation (MDL) is currently underway. IVC filter lawsuit plaintiffs claim that manufacturers failed to give adequate notice about leaving the device implanted for too long. These allegations surfaced after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a public warning about removing retrievable IVC filters within 60 days.

What Is an IVC Filter?

Patients with an increased risk of pulmonary embolism can have cage-like devices called Inferior Vena Cava filters, also known as IVC filters, surgically implanted. The device works by trapping blood clots before they can travel to vital organs like the lungs or heart and cause life-threatening complications. IVC filters are implanted either temporarily or permanently.

The FDA approved the first retrievable IVC filter in 2003. The device quickly became popular among physicians and patients. In fact, in 2010, the FDA predicted the number of implanted IVC filters would grow from 200,000 to over 259,000 annually.

IVC Filter Lawsuit Overview

In August 2010, the FDA issued its first IVC filter safety communication. The agency warned that retrievable IVC filters frequently stay in long after pulmonary embolism risks subside. They also reported that since 2005, patients filed 921 IVC filter complaints over device migration, components detaching and fracturing, and organ as well as blood vessel perforation. After the FDA’s safety communication, many victims filed IVC filter lawsuits against manufacturers Cook Medical Inc. and C.R. Bard.

In February 2015, a Nevada man injured by a C.R. Bard filter reached an IVC filter lawsuit settlement in only 10 days. This case may provide further insight into potential outcomes for other IVC cases at the state and federal level against C.R Bard and Cook Medical Inc. Today, over 10,000 IVC filter lawsuits are still pending. In the past year, three different plaintiffs won IVC filter lawsuit settlements worth $7.8 million total in damages.

Side Effects Mentioned in IVC Filter Lawsuit Filings

IVC filters present a significant health risk unless they’re removed in a timely manner. Research shows the optimal timeframe for an IVC filter to remain in the body is roughly 29 to 54 days. That’s long enough to catch any blood clots until after the risk of embolism passes. By keeping the IVC filter implanted longer, the patient risks the device breaking down or migrating within the body.

Many patients have retrievable IVC filter problems because they are actually rather difficult to remove. In fact, 25.8% of removal attempts fail. This is because most patients either fail to schedule removal surgery or miss their appointment. According to one study, almost 75% of patients don’t report for surgery, while another showed over 90% didn’t even schedule device removal surgery.