A consumer recently filed a lawsuit alleging that Cook vena cava filter products are dangerous and can result in complications, injury, and death.

Plaintiff Velma D. recently filed a lawsuit against Cook Medical Inc. and other related parties, alleging that her Cook vena cava filter caused complication and injury. Velma alleges she was implanted with the Gunther Tulip vena cava filter in 2008 and later experienced injury allegedly from the filter.

Velma claims that Cook vena cava filter products, including the Gunther Tulip filter, are associated with an increased risk of tilting, perforation, fracture, breakage and migration. These events can allegedly lead to injury or death.

Cook vena cava filters are metal wire devices which are fixed to the interior walls of the vena cava, the vein which returns blood to the heart. Should clots form in the deep veins of the legs, a vena cava filter can catch the clots or break them up. However, the Cook vena cava filter products were allegedly defective in design and cannot withstand the normal pressure exerted by blood flow.

“The failure of the Cook Filters is attributable, in part, to the fact that the Cook Filters suffer from a design defect causing it to be unable to withstand the normal anatomical and physiological loading cycles exerted in vivo,” the Cook vena cava filter lawsuit states.

The force of blood flow can allegedly cause Cook vena cava filter products to break, shift, or migrate. Because these devices have wire protrusions, any of these events can reportedly cause tearing or perforation to blood vessels.

The problems with Cook vena cava filter products are allegedly supported by scientific studies. In 2011, a study was published by Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology which examined the risks of Cook vena cava filter products. The study, which examined Gunther Tulip and Celect IVC filters implanted between July 2007 and May 2009, reportedly found that a shocking 100 percent of the filters imaged after 71 days caused some degree of perforation of the venal caval wall.

Velma argues that Cook knew or should have known that their vena cava filters were prone to tilting, perforation, and their associated complications. Despite an allegedly overwhelming amount of evidence that their products were dangerous, Cook has not warned patients or physicians of the risks.

“At all times relevant hereto, the Cook IVC Filters were dangerous and presented a substantial danger to patients who were implanted with the Cook IVC Filters, and these risks and dangers were known or knowable at the times of distribution and implantation in Plaintiffs,” the Cook vena cava filter lawsuit argues. “Ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks and dangers the Cook IVC Filters posed to patients, because their use was specifically promoted to improve health of such patients.”

Velma accuses Cook of strict products liability – failure to warn, strict products liability – design defect, negligence, negligence per se, breach of warranties, and violation of consumer protection laws. The Cook vena cava filter lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

The Cook Vena Cava Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-02026-RLY-TAB and is part of the Cook Vena Cava Filter MDL, In re: Cook Medical Inc. IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices ad Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:14-ml-2570-RLY-TAB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.