A new lawsuit joins the multidistrict litigation in progress over claims that IVC filters are responsible for a number of personal injuries, including organ perforation, device fracture, filter migration and even wrongful death.

Plaintiff Cynthia T. states that she underwent surgery to have the Cook Gunther Tulip Vena Cava Filter implanted in June 2007 in her home state of Arizona, according to her IVC filter injury lawsuit.

IVC filters are small medical devices that are surgically implanted into the vena cava, the body’s largest vein. It is designed to prevent blood clots from traveling from the lower part of the body up to the heart and lungs where they can do further damage. Blood clots can cause heart attack, stroke or pulmonary embolism, all of which can be fatal.

IVC filters have been on the market for over 40 years. They were designed as an alternative to oral anticoagulant medications. Some patients cannot take oral blood thinners to reduce blood clots, and IVC filters fill the need for these patients.

Sometimes, patients are implanted with IVC filters when they undergo a major surgery so the risk of a blood clot is reduced.

The initial IVC filters that were made were permanent in nature and were not designed to be removed. The Gunther Tulip filter that was placed in Cynthia was designed in 2003 as a temporary IVC filter. However, the lawsuit states that the device did not go through its own clinical trials before being approved.

Temporary IVC filters are designed to be removed after the risk of blood clots has passed. Critics say that these devices became mainstream based on safety advantages that were theorized rather than proven with hard scientific evidence. It is suggested that current research is showing that these devices are not as safe as they are assumed to be.

One such study published in January 2017 by JAMA Cardiology found that trauma patients who had been implanted with IVC filters did not survive any longer when compared to those who did not have the device implanted. Researchers concluded, “The use of IVC filters in this population should be re-examined because filter removal rates are low and there is increased risk of morbidity in patients with filters that remain in place.”

It is estimated that 15% or more of patients who have suffered a pulmonary embolism have been implanted with an IVC filter following that diagnosis. However, death rates from pulmonary embolisms are on the decline already, suggesting that these patients are being taken care of more carefully, even if not implanted with an IVC filter.

The IVC Filter Injury Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-00252 and is part of the IVC Filter MDL In Re-: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2570, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Filing an IVC Filter Injury Lawsuit

If you or a loved one had an IVC filter implanted and subsequently developed injuries as a result, you may be eligible to file an IVC filter injury lawsuit. An experienced lawyer can review your case at no charge and can help you decide if filing an IVC filter injury lawsuit is right for you.