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.
In general, IVC filter lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.
Do YOU have a legal claim? Fill out the form on this page now for a free, immediate, and confidential case evaluation. The attorneys who work with Top Class Actions will contact you if you qualify to let you know if an individual lawsuit or class action lawsuit is best for you. Hurry — statutes of limitations may apply.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2026 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
Get Help – It’s Free
Join a Free IVC Filter Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
If you or a loved one were injured by IVC filter complications, you may have a legal claim. See if you qualify to pursue compensation and join a free IVC filter class action lawsuit investigation by submitting your information for a free case evaluation.
An attorney will contact you if you qualify to discuss the details of your potential case.
Oops! We could not locate your form.
Dr. Bethany
Cynthia Anne Neal is a 51 y.o. female with a Greenfield IVC filter placed in 2014 with struts extending beyond the IVC wall in direct contact with the duodenum, right ureter, and L3-L4 disk space. Patient with chronic right flank pain and severe anxiety about filter being in place. We discussed that there can be many causes of flank pain and it is possible that the filter is not the cause, however we will not know until removal. She has severe anxiety regarding the filter that is preventing her from living her day to day life and would therefore like it to be removed despite any associated risks. We had an extensive discussion regarding Greenfield IVC filters and the fact that they were intended to be permanent filters. Advanced techniques will need to be used including possible laser and/or forcep removal. There are case reports of removal but any attempt of removal will have higher than average associated risks including caval rupture, filter leg fracture with possible embolization, possible failed removal, and death. We also discussed that if the filter cannot be removed after attempts had been made with deformation of the filter, then the filter may need to be stented against the caval wall. Any stent that is placed would be permanent. If a filter leg becomes fractured and retained, we cannot remove it, her pain may not be resolved. We will also plan for right groin access for possible emergency balloon placement in the event of caval injury. She consents to the procedure knowing all of these risks.
Â
I discussed the various treatment options available. At this time, we feel that she would benefit most from complex IVC filter retrieval including possible stenting. The risks, benefits and alternatives were fully discussed including bleeding, infection, IVC tear, death and damage to adjacent structures/organs. The patient’s questions were all answered to her satisfaction.
Â
Dr.Chang
Progress Notes by Kevin Chang, MD at 4/3/2026 Â 2:45 PM
Vascular Surgery Clinic Note:
Â
Reason for Visit: IVC filter perforation
PCP: Wesley James Greenwood, MD
Â
Assessment and Plan:
51F with hx of L suboccipital craniotomy , anxiety and panic attacks, multiple RLE DVTs and and hx of IVC filter placed in 2014, here for evaluation of perforations of IVC filter tines.
Â
Venous duplex demonstrates widely patent Right iliac vein stent and some likely chronic R tibial vein DVT.
Duplex with patient R iliac vein stent and suggestive of a patent IVC.
CT demonstrates what appears to be a nonremoveable type greenfield IVC filter with tine perforation through the IVC wall abutting her R psoas muscle and her anterior spinous ligament and a R iliac vein stent.