A Philadelphia jury has awarded $34 million to a woman who alleged her IVC filter removal surgery failed, leaving her with severe internal injuries.

Plaintiff Tracy R. of Georgia sued defendants Rex Medical LP and related companies for their role in the development, manufacturing, and distribution of the Option inferior vena cava filter, an implantable device used to trap blood clots.

The Option filter was reportedly designed to be retrievable. However, Tracy says her filter remains in her body even after causing her grave injury, all due to a failed IVC filter removal.

Tracy’s trial is the first of many slated to begin as part of a grouping of nearly 800 complaints against Rex for the Option filter. Her jury award breaks down to $3.4 million as compensation for medical bills and pain and suffering, and $30.3 million in punitive damages.

The Plaintiff’s Story

The plaintiff alleges she was implanted with the Option IVC filter in September 2010 in an effort to keep embolisms or blood clots from traveling from her lower extremities to her heart and lungs. Years later, her doctors discovered that the Option filter had perforated her inferior vena cava and damaged other organs in the region of the perforation.

In January 2017, Tracy says, she underwent a three-hour surgery in which removal of the IVC filter was attempted but failed. Counsel for the plaintiff noted the Option filter poses a continuous threat to Tracy as long as it remains in her body.

Balancing the Risks of IVC Filters vs. PE and Related Medical Emergencies

IVC filters are used as a substitute for anticoagulant medication to manage the risk of blood clot injuries like stroke or embolism. According to Northwest Medicine, a person diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis or venous thromboembolism secondary to a prior episode of pulmonary embolism may be a candidate for an IVC filter.

When blood clots are allowed to travel throughout the body, they may create serious obstructions in the circulatory system, potentially causing respiratory or cardiac arrest. Additionally, blood clots can obstruct blood flow to the brain and instigate a stroke.

An IVC filter mitigates this risk by trapping blood clots and letting the blood’s natural anticoagulants dissolve them. It is implanted in the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body, which returns de-oxygenated blood to the heart from the rest of the body. IVC filter implantation usually only takes place after treatment with blood-thinning medications hasn’t worked or they have been unable to take them for a variety of reasons.

According to the Mayo Clinic, about one-third of people with pulmonary embolism that remains undiagnosed and untreated will succumb to the condition. It is very serious and life-threatening. In addition to threats genetically inherited, people can be prone to PE that are pregnant, overweight, smoke, are immobile for long periods, or who have heart disease, cancer, or who have had surgery recently.

The movement to create removable IVC filters, as opposed to permanent ones, was spurred by a desire to expand the market of the device to patients that were temporarily immobile through trauma and surgery. While there have been good versions of this medical device, there have been several allegedly defective varieties leading to severe IVC filter complications.

Tracy’s IVC Filter Lawsuit is Case Number 170300241, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pa.