A Celect vena cava filter lawsuit alleges a Wisconsin woman suffered severe injuries from the device.

Plaintiff Benetta D. says she was implanted with the Celect inferior vena cava filter on Aug. 18, 2014.

IVC filters are small, cage-like mechanisms implanted into the vena cava to physically trap and break up blood clots before they have a chance to travel from the legs and pelvic region to the heart or lungs. The inferior vena cava is a vein that returns blood to the heart from the lower part of the body.

Some patients have a tendency to develop blood clots in the leg veins. This condition is called deep vein thrombosis or DVT. When the clot travels and reaches the lungs, it is called a pulmonary embolism or PE.

Patients who are unable to tolerate blood thinning medications are often candidates for the implantation of an IVC filter.

Celect Vena Cava Filter Lawsuit Alleges Company Knew of Device Problems

The Cook Celect has four anchoring struts for fixation and eight independent secondary struts to help center the mechanism and to trap clots.

The Celect vena cava filter lawsuit alleges the company knew the struts could break off because they were not anchored strong enough to withstand the “normal anatomical and physiological loading cycles” of the human body.

Still, the IVC filters “were widely advertised and promoted … as safe and effective treatment for prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism via placement in the vena cava.”

The Cook filters were designed to be retrievable, but a study found that of 130 retrieval attempts made between July 2006 and February 2008, 33 attempts failed. Either tissue grew around the small hooks of the IVC filters or the struts had penetrated the vena cava wall.

In a study of 73 patients implanted with the Celect filter between August 2007 and June 2008, researchers found “a high incidence of caval filter leg penetration. Immediately after fluoroscopy-guided filter deployment in 61 patients, four filters (6.5%) showed significant tilt. Follow-up abdominal CT in 18 patients demonstrated filter related problems in 7 (39%), which included  penetration of filter legs in 4 and fracture/migration of filter components in 1.”

Benetta’s Celect vena cava filter lawsuit contends Cook “knew or should have known that their IVC filters were more likely than not to perforate the vena cava wall.”

“Cook Filters were subject to breakage, tilt, inability of removal, and migration” but the company never warned doctors of these issues, says the Celect vena cava filter lawsuit.

Cook allegedly “did not accurately reflect the serious and potentially fatal adverse events” possible with the IVC filters.

Benetta and other patients suffer “permanent and continuous injuries, pain and suffering, disability and impairment” in addition to emotional trauma, says the Celect vena cava filter lawsuit. Those implanted with the IVC filters “have lost their ability to live a normal life” and have lost earnings while racking up medical bills.

The Celect Vena Cava Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-02524-LJM-MPB in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.