Cook Medical is facing an increasingly growing multidistrict litigation (MDL), with the most recent IVC (inferior vena cava) filter lawsuit filed by a California woman alleging vena cava filter injuries. This MDL consists of IVC filter lawsuits alleging similar injuries, making consolidation vital for a smooth litigation process.

In the latest claim alleging vena cava filter injuries, plaintiff Pamela S. was implanted with a Cook Celect IVC filter on Oct. 09, 2014. The device was implanted into her right internal jugular vein to resolve blood clot complications, and the device was supposed to prevent occurrences of heart attack or similar events.

However, it was not long until Pamela experienced problems with her IVC filter, compounding her already complicated condition. The scope of the vena cava filter injuries was discovered on Dec. 02, 2016, when it was found the device was titled with multiple filter legs protruding through the inferior vena cava wall.

Pamela is still contending with the damages caused by her vena cava injuries and is seeking compensation from Cook Medical for allegedly failing to warn her against the potential complications.

It is important to note that the Cook Celect IVC filter is a retrievable model, which is the variant numerous patients have reported trouble with. Cook Medical and other manufacturers allegedly failed to warn patients against vena cava filter injuries.

Overview of Vena Cava Filter Injuries

IVC filters are typically prescribed to patients who cannot use anticoagulant treatment in order to prevent blood clot formation. These metal cage-like devices are directly implanted into the body’s inferior vena cava vein, which is the largest vein in the body, and work by trapping blood clots forming in the legs or pelvis.

With this method, blood clots can typically resolve themselves. Patients can choose between permanent or retrievable models, in which the latter can later be explanted after the blood clots are resolved.

However, patients have complained the temporary models are not as well made, and consist of inferior components that are prone to breaking apart. Patients have reported serious vena cava filter injuries including:

• IVC filter fracturing or breaking apart
• IVC filter vein perforation
• Device migration
• Chest pain
• Cardiac or pericardial tamponade (fluid filling around the heart)

The FDA released an official warning for vena cava filter injuries in August 2010, after receiving 921 IVC filter injury reports from 2005 to 2010. In the announcement, the agency stated 328 of the reports involved device perforation and migration.

The FDA released a later statement in May 2014, warning physicians to explant temporary IVC filters soon after the blood clots are resolved. Even though vena cava injuries can be potentially dangerous to patients, manufacturers allegedly failed to warn them of the severity of these risks.

This IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-00367, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Indiana, Indianapolis Division.