Source: https://roseninjurylawyers.com/ivc-filter-lawsuit/settlements/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:09:44+00:00

Document:
Inferior vena cava “IVC” filters are intended to catch blood clots before they have the opportunity to reach the heart and lungs. Recent studies show that IVC filters may not be effective. The blood clot filters have also been associated with an increased risk of complications and injury. Thousands of patients nationwide have already filed lawsuits to recover compensation for harm caused by defective IVC filters.
Pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers have to make sure that the products they create are safe. Companies also have a responsibility to provide warnings about any risks that may be associated with the normal use of a device. When you’re injured because of a defective or dangerous device, you have the right to hold the manufacturer responsible.
More than 8,000 IVC filter lawsuits are currently pending in federal courts across the country. The vast majority of these lawsuits argue that the devices are defective and that manufacturers failed to warn patients about possible risks and dangers.
Pharmaceutical companies have failed to warn doctors and patients about potential risks.
C.R. Bard Inc. has also been accused of forging approval signatures on FDA documents and intentionally burying research showing that IVC filters are dangerous.
Studies now show that the risks associated with IVC filter use outweigh the benefits. In fact, the FDA has released two separate advisories to warn patients about risks associated with IVC filter implants. Many patients have reported that their IVC filters have fractured, migrated, and/or tilted after implantation. This can have potentially life-threatening consequences. Metal fragments can travel through the blood, reach the heart or lungs, and cause serious damage. In some cases, complications stemming from an IVC filter device can be fatal.
There are two types of IVC filters: permanent and retrievable. Retrievable filters are intended for temporary use. Unfortunately, retrievable devices have been associated with more than 900 adverse health events. Retrievable devices are fracturing, detaching, and migrating at alarming rates.
Many retrievable IVC filter injuries occur because the devices are left inside the body for too long. In 2014, the FDA issued an advisory suggesting that all retrievable filters should be removed from the body between 29 and 54 days after implantation. One study found that less than 9 percent of retrievable devices were actually removed from patients within this timeframe. The result? Heightened risks for adverse health events and complications during removal.
The law offers protections if you are injured because of a defective or dangerous medical device. Filing an IVC filter lawsuit can allow you to recover much-needed compensation for any harm you’ve suffered. Contact Rosen Injury Lawyers to find out how our legal team can help you get the money you deserve.
Prompt medical attention may be necessary to limit the damage caused by a defective blood clot filter. If left untreated, the complications caused by your IVC filter could be fatal.
Defective IVC filters have caused thousands of injuries. Many IVC filter manufacturers, including Cook Medical, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific, are now being sued for negligence in designing, manufacturing, and marketing these dangerous devices.
Defective IVC devices have the potential to harm thousands and thousands of people. As a result, many similar lawsuits have been filed across the country. When so many similar cases exist, there are two primary ways to handle the volume: class actions and MDLs.
Class Action: A class action lawsuit is filed to recover compensation on behalf of many victims. Rather than each individual victim pursuing compensation on his or her own, they can join a class of other victims. In order to qualify as a class, the facts, circumstances, and claims of the individual cases must be very similar.
MDL: IVC filters have the potential to injure thousands of patients across the nation. Each of these patients may have the right to file a lawsuit to recover compensation. In order to streamline the cases, they can be consolidated to be heard in a single court. This consolidation is known as multidistrict litigation. In most cases, the court will be in the state where the defendant is located.
The vast majority of IVC filter lawsuits are MDLs. The first cases to be tried in an MDL are known as bellwether cases. Bellwether lawsuits test the waters and see how the rest of the cases will likely unfold. Success in a bellwether trial often means that other IVC filter lawsuits in the MDL will also have a successful outcome.
Contact Rosen Injury Lawyers if you had or currently have a Bard IVC filter. You may be entitled to compensation for any past, present, or future injuries.
Booker v. Bard: In 2007, Sherri Booker received a Bard G2 IVC filter implant to reduce the risk of blood clots. The IVC device fractured in 2009. Metal shards from the IVC filter traveled to and lodged in her heart. Booker required open heart surgery to repair damage and remove the broken device.
Surgeons were unable to retrieve all of the pieces. Booker still has shards of the G2 device in her heart and suffers complications daily. In 2018, a jury determined that Bard had negligently failed to warn Booker about risks associated with the G2 filter.
IVC Filter Award: Booker was awarded $3.6 million in damages for her IVC filter injuries. The award included $2 million punitive damages, intended to punish Bard for its conduct.
Davis v. Bard: Lisa Davis received a Bard G2 filter implant in 2006. The device fractured in 2008 and traveled to her heart. She has suffered severe and health complications for the past decade. Bard settled the case privately in March 2013.
Vlasvich v. Bard: Vlasvich received a Bard G2 IVC filter implant in 2009. In 2011, three of the twelve spokes used to secure the device to the vein fractured and traveled to her heart. She required open heart surgery, but doctors were only able to remove one of the spokes safely. Bard settled the case privately in January 2015.
Phillips v. Bard: Phillips received a Bard IVC filter implant in 2005. Metal fragments traveled to and perforated his heart when the device fractured in 2010. The case went to trial, but Bard ultimately offered to settle privately 10 days after it began.
Contact our IVC filter injury attorneys if you had or currently have a Cook Medical IVC filter. You may be entitled to compensation for any past, present, or future injuries.
Pavlok v. Cook: Pavlok received a retrievable Celect IVC filter implant in 2015. Doctors attempted to remove the device when the risk of blood clots had passed, approximately seven weeks after implantation. However, they discovered that the device had punctured the aorta and small intestine before become lodged in the man’s renal vein. It took three surgeries to remove the entire device. Pavlok has extensive surgical scars and is now at an increased risk of developing spinal stenosis.
IVC Filter Award: Pavlok was awarded $1.2 million in damages for injuries related to the defective Cook Medical IVC filter.
Boston Scientific has also been named in several IVC filter lawsuits. Most of the lawsuits have involved the permanent Greenfield IVC filter.
Milan v. Boston Scientific: Katherine Milan received a Greenfield IVC filter implant in 2005. In 2010, she began to experience severe pain in her abdomen and thigh. Doctors discovered that the IVC filter had become clogged and obstructed with clots. The case has been consolidated in an MDL in Illinois.
Ratliff v. Boston Scientific: Ratliff received a Greenfield IVC filter implant in 2004 to prevent blood clots after she was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). In 2013, while working as a long-haul truck driver, the device malfunctioned, punctured her vena cava, and caused internal bleeding. Ratliff did not survive her injuries. An autopsy confirmed that her death was caused by “perforation of the inferior vena cava by Greenfield Filter with retroperitoneal hemorrhage.” In 2017, Boston Scientific privately settled the wrongful death lawsuit.
Contact Rosen Injury Lawyers if you had or currently have an IVC filter manufactured by Boston Scientific. You may be entitled to compensation for any past, present, or future injuries.
IVC filters are small medical devices that are designed to stop blood clots from reaching the heart and lungs. The small, spider-like device is implanted into the inferior vena cava, a large vein that carries blood from the legs to the heart. Blood runs right through the filter, but any clots that form become lodged in the device.
IVC filters aren’t the only way to prevent or reduce blood clots. In fact, other treatments, including anticoagulants and blood thinners, have been proven to be much more successful. However, some patients can’t tolerate these medications. IVC filters offer an alternative solution when other treatments would endanger a patient.
Do I Have an IVC Filter Injury Lawsuit?
Medical devices are supposed to make your life easier and help to keep you safe. You were told that the IVC filter would help to prevent potentially fatal blood clots and pulmonary embolisms. What you didn’t expect, however, was that the device would fracture, migrate, or tilt after implantation. These are unreasonable risks that can put your health in serious danger. You shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences on your own.
Even in some instances if you have not experienced any symptoms.
Only an experienced IVC filter injury lawyer will be able to tell you if you have an IVC filter case. Contact Rosen Injury Lawyers to schedule a free consultation. We’ll review your case, explain your legal options, and answer the questions you have. Call now to get started.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.