An Illinois plaintiff has filed a Cook Celect IVC Filter lawsuit against the makers of the medical device claiming negligence and design defect, among other claims.

Plaintiff Cherlnell L. was implanted with the Cook Celect IVC filter device in May 2005 at the University of Chicago Medicine in Chicago Illinois.

As a result, the plaintiff claims she suffered harm due to related IVC filte comlpications. She is bringing forth claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty as well as punitive damages.

This Cook Celect IVC Filter lawsuit is case number 1:17-cv-02531-TWP-MPB in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Overview of IVC Filters and Complications

The Cook Celect IVC filter is a small device similar to a cage that is put inside the main vein of the body to keep blood clots from traveling to the heart or brain. Some patients who are at risk for blood clots and who are not good candidates for blood thinners must have an inferior vena cava filter like the Cook Celect IVC filter implanted.

Patients who have had lower body surgery like hip or knee replacement or who have suffered trauma in their lower body are at risk for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Deep vein thrombosis is when a blood clot develops deep inside the veins of the leg and then are loosened. These clots can travel to the heart or lungs or even the brain. If this happens, the result can be life-threatening.

The IVC filter is designed to catch the blood clot and keep it in place until it dissolves back into the blood.

Most IVC filters are meant to be temporary. When the risk of the blood clots has passed, temporary IVC filters should be removed from the patient, according to teh FDA. If the filter is not removed, the risk of severe complications rises.

Complications for long term IVC filters include IVC thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, access site thrombosis, filter migration, and IVC filter fracture.

As recently as 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration put out a safety communication noting that in the previous five years it had received almost 1,000 adverse event reports regarding IVC filters.

Of those reports, 328 patients reported IVC filter migration, 146 involved components of the filter detaching from the filter itself, 70 patients reported perforation of the inferior vena cava and over fifty reports involved the fracture of the IVC filter.

Long term use of IVC filters seems linked to an increased risk of complications. The FDA has also recommended that once the risk of blood clots subsides, the filter should then be removed.

Many plaintiffs who file lawsuits regarding inferior vena cava filters claim that their device fractured, migrated or perforated the vein or an organ. Some have even claimed that the IVC is not able to be removed because it has migrated too far from its implant site.