At The Product Lawyers, our attorneys don’t make commercials, but we are here to help. Patients who suffered severe injury after being implanted with an IVC filter may be entitled to significant financial compensation. But time is limited. Many of the currently-filed lawsuits have been “consolidated,” transferred as a group to central federal district courts.
The course of litigation is speeding up, and at least one judge has begun selecting representative cases for trial. Act quickly, before you lose the right to file suit. Have questions about case eligibility? Call the experienced lawyers at Banville Law today for a free consultation. We’ll answer your most pressing questions at absolutely no charge and no obligation.
What The TV Commercials Don’t Tell You
IVC filters, net-like medical devices implanted in the inferior vena cava, can break or migrate inside the body, and these risks seem to be terrifyingly common. In study after study, IVC filters manufactured by companies from C.R. Bard to Cook Medical have been linked to severe injuries. Most of the harm is apparently caused by utter failures of the device itself.
Numerous serious injuries have been linked directly to IVC filters, including:
- the devices can move or migrate, dislodging from its proper position, becoming ineffective or damaging internal organs
- the filter’s struts can perforate the inferior vena cava, inhibiting the vein’s function or leading to internal bleeding
- IVC filters can break apart, sending metal shards flowing towards the heart or lungs
- broken filters can be extremely difficult to remove, requiring invasive and costly surgical treatments
- the device may even increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis, dangerous blood clots that begin in the legs
These dangers are very real, and the FDA believes that many examples of IVC filter failure are the result of doctors leaving the devices inside patients for too long. In 2014, the agency released an urgent safety alert, advising physicians to remove IVC filters immediately after a patient’s risk of pulmonary embolism has passed. Ideally, an IVC filter should only remain inside a patient for 29 to 54 days after implantation.
Did Medical Device Manufacturers Fail To Warn Us?
For many patients, those warnings have come too late. Recent investigative reports have even discovered evidence that some IVC filter manufacturers were fully aware of the device’s dangers, but chose to keep that information from the public.
In December of 2015, NBC News began a shocking report with these words: “a company that made a blood clot filter associated with 27 deaths and hundreds of problems replaced the device with a modified version that it knew had similar and potentially flaws soon after it was put on the market.” Instead of recalling its G2 filter, which may break apart in up to 12% of patients, C.R. Bard “decided to keep them on the market for five years[,] selling more than 160,000 of them.”
Doctors and patients have met these revelations with justifiable outrage. Many have gone further, filing personal injury lawsuits against IVC filter manufacturers.
Further IVC Filter Reading