The makers of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are facing a growing number of product liability lawsuits brought on behalf of patients across the country.

These patients were implanted with IVC filters to reduce the risk of blood clots and pulmonary embolisms.

However, some IVC filter patients claim that they suffered severe complications such as filter migration, perforation of the vena cava, and filter embolisms.

What is an IVC Filter?

An inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a type of vascular filter device implanted in the inferior vena cava, or the large vein in the abdomen that carries blood from the lower part of the body to the heart.

The filter is designed to trap fragments of blood clots that develop in the veins of the leg or pelvis, a condition called deep venous thrombosis (DVT), thereby preventing the clots from traveling through the vena cava vein to the heart and lungs and causing strokes and other severe complications.

It is recommended that retrievable IVC filter removal be performed when the risk of a blood clot traveling to the lungs has passed or if a patient can take blood thinners. IVC filter removal does not address the cause of the initial deep venous thrombosis or disorder that caused the blood clot risk.

Because filters can increase risks of new blood clot formation in the legs and abdomen, and certain filter types have been found to break apart and/or cause symptoms from the filter legs penetrating the wall of the device, IVC filter removal is recommended when the filter is no longer needed.

IVC Filter Litigation

A number of retrievable IVC filters manufactured by C.R. Bard and Cook Medical have been tied to reports of serious and sometimes fatal complications, including instances where the blood clot filters migrated out of position and punctured the vena cava, or fractured and sent small fragments of the filter to the heart or lungs (embolization).

More and more former recipients of IVC filters are coming forward with complaints of serious injuries from the implants and are filing legal claims against the makers of the allegedly defective medical devices, citing poor design and manufacturing as the reasons for their injuries.

All of these IVC filter lawsuits filed over complications from the Cook Celect IVC filter have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, and all Bard IVC filter complaints have been centralized before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.

In one recent IVC filter lawsuit, filed on Dec. 14 2015, a woman from New York alleges that her Bard G2 IVC filter migrated out of position and fractured, causing severe pain in her abdomen and lower back. She underwent a major operation to remove the broken filter, and may require additional surgical procedures in the future.

It is expected that the selection of four Cook IVC Filter cases will begin in September 2016.  In regards to the Bard IVC Filter MDL, the status of establishing the process for bellwether trial selection is still pending.

MDL proceedings eliminate duplicative discovery and streamline proceedings to help identify strengths and weaknesses in the central argument and move toward a speedier resolution. After a series of bellwether trials, defendants may choose to make a large settlement offer or proceed with individual trials.

If you received an IVC filter implant and you have since suffered complications like device fracture, device migration, or injury to nearby organs, you may consider filing an IVC filter lawsuit.