Cook Medical IVC filter litigation is entering into the process of determining initial IVC filter bellwether cases, but the plaintiffs and defendants disagree on which cases to use.

The Cook IVC filter lawsuits being considered as IVC filter bellwether cases were consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation in October 2014.

The proceedings are overseen by District Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana. Bellwether cases are intended to help guide later proceedings and predict settlement negotiations.

According to a recent filing, the plaintiffs and Cook Medical have each submitted vastly different lists of possible IVC filter bellwether cases. Parties formed their lists from a group of about 400 lawsuits currently pending in court.

From these 400 potential cases, each party chose seven cases meant to represent the entire litigation.

Parties Disagree on IVC Filter Bellwether Cases

According to plaintiffs, however, the defendants have chosen potential IVC filter bellwether cases that do not represent the litigation as a whole.

Two of the seven possible IVC filter bellwether cases chosen by the defendants were filed over problems with Gunther Tulip filters. However, the majority of the cases were filed over Celect filters.

Two of the defendants’ recommended bellwether cases involve patients suffering from recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but plaintiffs claim that DVT is not a common problem among a significant number of the lawsuits.

Two of the defendants’ suggestions involve plaintiffs with pre-existing clotting disorders, which plaintiffs claim blurs lines with IVC filter injuries.

Another case involves a patient whose IVC filter perforated the vena cava, a common complication in the proceedings. However, the filter was successfully removed, which is not the case for a majority of other plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs said in their statement that both parties were required to recommend cases representing the litigation as a whole, “primarily alleging injuries from the Celect IVC filter due to migration, IVC perforation, and an inability to be removed.”

The defendants, however, insist that choosing at least one case involving the Gunther Tulip IVC filter is essential. The plaintiffs later acquiesced, suggesting one such case. The defendants also stated that plaintiffs’ recommendations over-emphasized fracture and open removal.

IVC Filter Basics

Inferior vena cava filters, also known as IVC filters, are implanted to prevent blood clots from moving into the lungs or heart of a patient, which can cause serious complications.

IVC filters are placed in the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body, since blood clots in this vein pose the greatest threat.

However, some patients who have been implanted with IVC filters are filing lawsuits against IVC filter manufacturers like Cook Medical, alleging that these IVC devices can cause serious complications.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received hundreds of adverse events reports claiming that a patient’s IVC filter migrated to the heart or other serious complications involving filter migration and punctured organs.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Lawsuits

Lawsuits allege that IVC filter manufacturers like Cook Medical either knew or should have known that their filters were linked with serious complications, yet chose to market the product as safe and effective.

Although filing a lawsuit cannot take away the pain and suffering from these complications, it can help to compensate for the financial expenses incurred by medical bills and lost wages.

If you or someone you love has been implanted with an inferior vena cava filter and has since suffered from serious complications such as filter migration or organ perforation, you may be able to file an IVC filter lawsuit.