Boston Scientific has been hit with an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter lawsuit from a Maryland woman who experienced severe complications after getting a Greenfield IVC filter implanted. The woman claims the device migrated out of the implant area and perforated her vena cava.

Plaintiff Monica J., who according to her filing is representing herself, filed her IVC filter lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland on Nov. 16, 2015.

The IVC filter lawsuit states that she received the IVC filter sometime before 2004, and has suffered numerous health complications ever since.

She reportedly suffered from shortness of breath, pain, weight loss, and other health impairments. Monica underwent numerous tests to help pinpoint the reason for her complications, and finally got an answer in February 2015. Monica’s lawsuit alleges that her IVC filter had failed, perforating her vena cava and migrating out of its initial implant position.

Monica is suing Boston Scientific for allegedly being aware of the potential complications associated with their device, yet failing to warn her, other patients, and the medical community.

Overview of IVC Filter Allegations

IVC filters are small cage-like devices that are placed in the body’s main vain, the vena cava, to capture blood clots and prevent them from reaching the heart or lungs. While originally only designed as permanent fixtures, temporary models are now available.

Monica’s claim is similar to many other IVC filter claims surrounding newer inferior vena cava models, which were designed to be removed once the blood clot resolved itself.

Unfortunately there have been numerous product liability claims against the manufacturers of these temporary IVC filter models, with patients complaining that the devices broke apart and caused them further complications.

There are currently hundreds of Bard G2 and Cook Select IVC filter lawsuits pending throughout the federal court system, claiming that these temporary models caused fracturing or puncturing of the vena cava.

In August 2010 the FDA issued a public safety alert regarding the potential risks associated with IVC filters, with the agency indicating that it had received over 900 adverse event reports at the time.

More recently, the FDA updated its IVC filter warning in May 2014, warning doctors to remove the IVC filters between one to two months after the pulmonary embolism has passed.

Unfortunately this warning came too late for patients like Monica, some of whom are taking legal action against the device’s manufacturers.