An Ohio woman has filed a IVC filter side effects lawsuit against the makers of her IVC filter claiming negligence and other counts.

Plaintiff Carol F. of Ohio claims that the maker of her IVC filter, C.R. Bard, is to blame for her troubles with her medical device. Her IVC filter side effects lawsuit is joining the larger MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

In her IVC filter side effects lawsuit, Carol says that she was implanted with Bard’s Denali vena cava filter in June 2016. Since then, she claims has experienced IVC filter side effects and complications leading to the case.

She has filed this lawsuit on multiple counts, which include manufacturing defect, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violations of Ohio law.

Carol’s IVC Filter Side Effects Lawsuit is Case No. 2:18-cv-02200-DGC  in the United States District Court for the State of Arizona.

IVC Filter Side Effects

The medical definition of thromboembolism is the formation in a blood vessel of a clot (thrombus) that breaks loose and then carried by the blood stream to plug another vessel. If the clot plugs a vessel in the lungs, it causes a pulmonary embolism; in the brain, the clot can cause a stroke. Clots can also impact the gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, or legs.

IVC filters, or inferior vena cava filters, can pose some dangerous complications to some patients. An IVC filter is a small device, shaped somewhat like an umbrella, that is placed within the inferior vena cava vein. It is used in patients who have  a risk for dangerous blot clots that could travel from the lower body to the lungs, heart or brain.

An IVC filter may be used because of the following conditions:

• Pulmonary thromboembolism when anticoagulant therapy cannot be used or is contraindicated;
• In those with thromboembolic diseases, who suffer failure of blood thinning medications; and
• Chronic or recurrent pulmonary embolism when a patient cannot use an anticoagulant.

Many patients receive an IVC implant because they cannot take blood thinners for various reasons. However, IVC filters may be unsafe and come with the risk of IVC filter side effects.

It has been recommended that IVC filters be removed from the patient as soon as the risk for blood clots has subsided, but some filters cannot be removed. Another possible issue is that the medical community is not informed enough to make sure they are removed.

In fact, in May 2014, the FDA issued an update to a safety communication it put out four years previous. The FDA noted that once a patient was no longer at risk for pulmonary embolism, the filter should be removed. This should occur between 29 and 54 days after implantation.

IVC filter side effects complications, according to Seminars in Interventional Radiology, can be divided into three categories. These categories are, “procedural complications, including those related to both venous access and filter deployment; delayed complications, including filter fracture, migration, IVC thrombosis, and recurrent PE; and complications of filter retrieval after implantation of temporary IVC filters.”

Perhaps some of the most serious IVC filter side effects include the delayed complications. When an IVC filter has been implanted for a long time, problems like those listed above can occur.

Many patients hold the manufacturers to blame for these IVC filter side effects. If you or someone you love has been implanted with an IVC filter and has experienced IVC filter side effects, you may be eligible for legal action.