IVC filters have been linked to an increased risk of fracture which can cause serious injury or death. Our law firm is focused on Cordis and Cook IVC filter cases.
The IVC filter lawsuits have been going on for a long time, too long. Our lawyers frequently get calls from people who are frustrated that their lawyer has “done nothing” to advance their case towards settlement. We also get calls from victims who cannot find a lawyer. This page gives you information if you have filed an IVC filter lawsuit or are thinking of filing such a claim.
New Verdicts in That Means Something to You
The big news in these IVC filter cases came in April 2018 when the plaintiff scored their first big win. An Arizona jury awarded a Georgia woman $3.6 million, including $2 million in punitive damages.
In November 2019, a Pennsylvania jury awarded $34 million to a Georgia woman who was injured by a Rex Medical Option IVC filter.
Cook Medical Verdicts
Cook has been hit with large verdicts twice now. The first was for $3 million in Brand v. Cook Medical. in February 2019. Last year, the judge ordered a new trial because of evidence the judge now says should not have been admitted. But the precedential value of the verdict when calculating future Cook Medical IVC filter settlements remains.
There was also a $1.2 million verdict in favor of a firefighter in Pavlock v. Cook Medical in May 2018. The victim sued because his Celect inferior vena cava filter needed to be removed.
COVID has slowed things down to be sure. But Cook is going to have to defend the Celect filter again and again. At some point, it is reasonable to expect them to realize that juries won’t support them which will hopefully lead to a Cook Celect IVC filter class action settlement.
Cook IVC Filter Lawsuit Update May 2021
As of November 15, 2021, there are 8,093 active Cook medical Celect IVC lawsuits pending. They are not going away.
History of IVC Filters
IVC filters were developed for patients that have trouble with anticoagulation therapy because of concomitant bleeding or a high risk of bleeding. IVC filters have been developed to address these issues. These devices are placed in the IVC. They are designed to allow uninterrupted blood flow while catching pieces of blood clots and preventing them from migrating to the pulmonary arteries. These devices essentially resemble the ribs of an umbrella without the cloth stretched between them.
The first IVC filter was the Mobin-Udin filter developed in 1967. It was replaced by the Greenfield filter in 1973. These first-generation filters required surgical access to the femoral vein for placement and the threshold for their implantation was high.
Over time, IVC filters were able to be placed percutaneously through a large-bore IV placed in the femoral vein. Then the retrievable filters were invented to be placed and left in place permanently or retrieved for months. These filters were attractive for patients needing temporary IVC filter therapy. The same cast of characters we have today jumped into the retrievable IVC filters fray: Cook Medical (Gunther-Tulip), Bard Medical (Bard Recovery Filter), and Cordis (Optease).
- Deeper into IVC Filter science and how it relates to this litigation
IVC Filter Problems
The Bard IVC MDL class action began in August 2015 with 22 lawsuits. By the time the MDL closed on May 31, 2019, 8,000 cases had been filed. How did we get here?
Venous thromboembolism, or the formation of blood clots in the veins, occurs in more than 200,000 Americans per year. Bard’s IVC filters are medical devices placed in the patient’s vena cava designed to catch blood clots for patients at risk for pulmonary embolism. The filters are designed to trap clots before they travel to the lungs. You don’t implant these filters unless the patient is at risk and attempts to mitigate risk using medications have not been effective. Only then do doctors turn to these Bard IVC filters.
But the Bard filters create their own problems. On August 9, 2010, the FDA released information warning of complications with the Bard IVC Filters. That same day, an article that appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine concludes that the Bard Recovery® Filter has a 25% rate of fracture and the G2® Filter has a 12% rate of fracture.
The IVC filter failures included death, filter migration, caval perforation, filter embolization, pulmonary embolism (PE), caval thrombosis, and filter fracture. In 2018, there is data that indicates that the G2 IVC filter was failing at a significantly increased rate relative to Bard’s predicate permanent device. This finding was particularly true for migration and perforation. This has led to a lot of lawsuits claiming injury and death.
Cook Medical and Cordis
Plaintiffs’ lawsuits allege Cook Medical and Cordis IVC filters are more dangerous than other IVC filters because of their fundamental flaws. These suits claim these filters have a greater risk of perforation, penetration, tilting, fracture, and migration. The victims bringing these lawsuits would concede that these risks are present in all IVC filters. But the key is whether Cook and Cordis were worse.
Still, for all the defective design talk, this is ultimately a failure to warn claim. The plaintiffs believe that Cook and Cordis had a legal and moral obligation to warn both patients and physicians about these risks and the fact that the filters had problems.
Cook Medical Celect and Cordis Lawsuits
Specifically, the claims against Cook and Cordis will continue. If you were injured from a Cook or Cordis IVC filter, reach out to our IVC filter lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or connect with us online. The call or online case review is free.
Medical Literature on IVC Filters
- Jia Z, et. al: Caval Penetration by Inferior Vena Cava Filters: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Significance and Management. Circulation. 2015. Sep 8; 132 (10): 944-52.
- FDA, Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: FDA Safety Communication (May 6, 2014).
- Joels CS, et. al: Complications of inferior vena cava filters. Am Surg 2003;69:654-9.