IVC Filter Class Action Update – February 2023
A filtering device is inserted within the IVC, a large vein in the abdomen that returns blood from the lower part of the body to the heart, during the implantation of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. Sometimes, blood clots in the legs and pelvic veins can go to the lungs and produce a pulmonary embolism or obstruction. IVC filters work to stop big clots from getting to the heart and lungs, lowering the risk of pulmonary embolism. Patients who don’t react to or are unable to receive standard medical treatment, such as blood thinners, are treated with them.
An interventional radiologist with specialized training often performs image-guided, minimally invasive treatments like the insertion and detachment of IVC filters in an interventional radiology lab or sometimes inside the surgery room.
IVC filter settlement funding is something Tribeca tackles across the nation. In 2023, our representatives will focus on IVC cases involving Cook, Boston Scientific, and C.R. Bard. Other IVC lawsuits are being examined as well.
Subsequently, these cases frequently allege a possible design flaw, a manufacturing flaw, device migration, a failure to disclose implant risk factors, or even defective devices. Several people have reported accidents and other negative effects related to the filter, including organ punctures, ineffective removal operations, filter components coming loose, and fractured filters.
Over previous weeks, some of the fervor around the IVC filter suits has subsided. IVC filter claim webpages are no longer being updated by law firms as frequently. What occurred, and how are the 2023 IVC filter lawsuits faring? Henceforth January 2023, there remained over 8,106 cases ongoing in the MDL class action versus Cook alone.
Recent IVC Court Verdicts & Settlements
IVC (inferior vena cava) filters are used to treat individuals who have sustained serious injuries or perhaps passed away in the past few years. As these damaged people seek the recompense they properly deserve from negligent makers of medical device enterprises, IVC filter litigation is proliferating in the courts.
$3.3 Million IVC Filter Lawsuit Verdict
In the past few years, there have been three plaintiffs’ verdicts. The most recent case is the one against C.R. Bard.
The unanimous jury of seven members in Wisconsin awarded Natalie Johnson $3.6 million after declaring Bard accountable for a flawed warning in the lawsuit concerning a Bard Meridian filter.
IVC filter implantation was performed on Johnson, 60, in advance of a procedure involving her lower limbs. Johnson was given the filter in order to avoid a pulmonary embolus. But after a CT scan in 2018 indicated that one of the filter’s tines had gotten embolized to Ms. Johnson’s right ventricle plus an additional tine had broken and been stuck in the vena cava immediately above the filter, it was discovered to have ruptured. Shortly after it was discovered that the filter had split, it was detached.
Other IVC Filter Lawsuits
In the IVC filter cases, C.R. The devices made by Bard, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific have flaws that increased the likelihood that they might fracture or puncture the inferior vena cava.
There are several claims that are still active in federal and state courts that allege the producers of negligence, failure to notify, filter design and technical flaws, violation of implied warranty, and negligent falsification.
Bard Filter Bellwether Trials
Georgian Doris Jones was the subject of the June Trial. In 2010, Jones was administered a Bard Eclipse IVC filter. She started having headaches and arm discomfort after five years. The filter had fractures, which were discovered by a medical scan. A fragment of the IVC filter had cut off her right pulmonary artery. Blood travels through the main artery from the heart to the lungs, where it takes oxygen. The physicians removed the bulk of the damaged filter. The part that was impeding the pulmonary artery could not be removed, though. It continues to provide a lethal risk, according to her lawyers.
As of June 1st, 2018, C.R. Bard prevailed on its second IVC filter case. An Arizona jury found that the company gave doctors sufficient advance notice of the dangers and adverse effects.
Moreover, Carol Kruse, the plaintiff in another lawsuit, asserts that Bard marketed faulty IVC blood filters designed to avoid pulmonary emboli. US District Judge David Campbell reportedly awarded a summary judgment in favor of Bard after determining that the claim was time-barred by the IVC filter litigation deadline, according to court records. The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that the statute of limitations defense had been overlooked because it was a bellwether case.
A few other bellwether cases such as Lisa Hyde from Wisconsin and Debra Mulkey’s against Bard were dismissed or further removed from trial due to the lack of evidence.
Even though the Arizona District MDL on Bard IVC filters had just ended in May 2019, victims can still pursue claims in their local district court in the US. In this MDL, Bard filters including the G2, G2X, Recovery, Meridian, Eclipse, and Denali were the subject of IVC filter disputes.
Cook Filter Bellwether Trials in Texas
On November 2017, Cook Medical triumphed in the multidistrict litigation’s opening bellwether trial.
In an effort to resolve the lawsuits before the court hearing, the judge presiding over the Cook IVC filter MDL held a number of settlement meetings between the business and the individuals who filed lawsuits in 2015. Nonetheless, the court began pretrial procedures the next year and chose the MDL’s initial bellwether cases.
The second bellwether case, which was also presented by Cook Medical, was dismissed by the judge on the basis that the injured party’s claim had expired. In the assertion of a warranty violation, the statute of limitations was one year and one day.
But, in May 2018, a Texas jury decided in favor of Houston fireman Jeff Pavlock, awarding him $1.2 million after finding that a Cook Celect IVC filter had harmed both aorta and the small intestine. The court case wasn’t one of the bellwethers. Cook Medical intends to challenge the jury’s verdict.
A jury ruling on February 1, 2019, in the third bellwether trial against Cook Medical, mandated that the company pay plaintiff Tonya Brand $3 million. One of the struts or legs of her Celect IVC filter fractured, forcing it to come out of her leg; the other components, unfortunately, are unsalvageable and will stay within her body permanently. In response to this ruling, Cook has appealed.
Claims Against Boston Scientific’s Greenfield IVC Filter
Boston Scientific resolved an IVC lawsuit in a wrongful death action for victim Cynthia Ratliff in 2017 for an unrevealed sum. Her inferior vena cava was ruptured in 2004 by a faulty Greenfield filter, which led to a retroperitoneal hemorrhage and ultimately to her death, according to a postmortem assessment.
Moreover, patient Katherine Milan is suing Boston Scientific right now on issues related to her 2005 Greenfield filter implant. Scan results show that the filter is blocked, and she is in excruciating discomfort in her thigh and midsection.
Boston Scientific is not currently the target of any MDLs (multi-district litigation proceedings) or class actions relating to their Greenfield IVC filter.
Status of Lawsuits
At least three IVC filter class-action lawsuits have been filed in the US. None of them are still active. These were either combined into the Bard and Cook IVC filter class action cases or all were dismissed.
There have been out-of-court settlements in a number of IVC filter claims that were not included in the MDLs. Regrettably, the compensation amounts for the IVC filter litigation have not been disclosed, perhaps because of a provision in the settlement agreement that forbids plaintiffs from doing so.
What is an IVC Filter?
IVC filters are medical equipment with legs in the shape of an umbrella that are designed to stop blood clots from traveling from the body’s lower extremities to the heart or lungs. Although these filters were only intended to be placed temporarily, issues have made extraction for some patients difficult.
IVC Filter Side Effects
IVC filters have a tendency to migrate or break off, which can lead to problems and perhaps cause fatalities.
Severe injury consists of:
- Organ puncture
- Organ injury
- Bleeding from within
- Chronic pain
- Particles from a broken IVC filter that has been left behind permanently are unable to be retrieved
Manufacturers and Brands Named in Lawsuits
Who is defendant Bard?
One of the biggest producers of medical devices in the country is C.R. Bard.
Many of those at risk of recurring pulmonary embolism who likely would’ve had few therapeutic choices have been shielded by Bard IVC (inferior vena cava) Filters, one of the various products that the company produces. More than ten years ago, C. R. Bard first received FDA approval to commercialize these devices. Before going on the market, Bard IVC Filters are put through a rigorous battery of tests in accordance with federal law and are assessed by the FDA.
Who is defendant Boston Scientific?
A maker of medical equipment, Boston Scientific is publicly listed. It was established in 1979, has 29,000 employees, and its headquarters are in Marlborough, Massachusetts.
The GreenfieldTM Stainless Steel Vena Cava Filter is made by Boston Scientific. (It is named for Dr. Lazar Greenfield, who first invented this.)
Several lawsuits have been filed against Boston Scientific because of the GreenfieldTM inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, which several patients claim have led to significant IVC filter ailments.
In order to prevent future blood clots from forming while preserving as much regular circulation as possible, patients have the GreenfieldTM filter inserted in their veins. More than a million of these implants have been made, based on the company’s website, during the past thirty years.
Who is defendant Cook?
Bill and Gayle Cook founded a modest business in 1963 in India that produced three straightforward medical devices used to treat patients less invasively than popular surgical procedures at the time. The little business expanded to become Cook Medical, a firm with a presence all over the world with products for practically every bodily system and hospital department.
What Money Can Victims Recover?
In some circumstances, the victim may get financial recompense for their damages. This can cover expenses associated with injuries, such as greater hospital bills and missed work. It is possible to hold doctors, surgeons, and hospital staff accountable, especially when there are instances of medical malpractice.
Why IVC Filters Were Recalled
ICV filter issues in recent years have involved a small number of products and had a specific scope. Almost 80,000 implants were subject to six recalls between 2005 and 2015. The majority of the time, labeling and packaging problems were to blame for recalls. The apparatus is still largely commonly accessible today.
Solely safety complaints have resulted in additional FDA action. The FDA issued a safety notice in 2010 after realizing that prolonged usage of retrievable filters might result in perforations, displacement, and fractures of the filters. To reduce the risk of PE, the 2010 notice advised doctors to remove retrievable IVC filters. The FDA amended its notice in 2014, indicating that IVC filters represent more harm than benefit between 29 and 54 days after insertion so they ought to be retrieved. The upgraded notice also demanded the gathering of further clinical information.
IVC filter lawsuits have recently identified the following manufacturers and models:
Greenfield Filter from Boston Scientific
Recovery Filter, Eclipse Filter, G2 Filter, and G2 Express Filter from C.R. Bard
Celect Filter as well as Günther Tulip Filter from Cook Medical
FDA Approval Process for IVC Filters
According to section 513(i)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, a 510(k) is a premarket application filed to the FDA to show that the item being marketed is essentially equivalent—that is, just as reliable and effective as a device already on the market. In order to prove and sustain their claims of significant equivalence, submitters must make a comparison of their product to one or more similarly constructed, lawfully sold products.
If a device is basically equivalent to a predicate, then it:
- Has the predicate’s intended usage as its purpose; and
- Shares the predicate’s technical qualities; or
- Has the predicate’s intended usage as its purpose; and
- Has unique technological qualities but does not pose unique safety and efficacy concerns; and
- According to the data provided to the FDA, the gadget is just as secure and efficient as those that are sold lawfully.
FDA initially confirms that the newest and precedent devices have the same intended function and that any variations in advanced technologies do not raise new concerns regarding safety and efficacy. The FDA then examines the scientific techniques used to assess variations in technological attributes and operational data to determine if the device is as secure and reliable as the predicate device. In addition to “engineering performance testing, sterility, electromagnetic compatibility, software validation, and biocompatibility evaluation”, these performance measures can also contain clinical data and non-clinical bench performance data.
Obtain Legal Funding For Your IVC Settlement Today
IVC filter pre-settlement financing offers different forms of risk protection.
With an IVC filter lawsuit loan, you may pay your bills now and pursue full compensation while having access to the assets from your resultant payout right away. An IVC filter lawsuit loan never puts your present or future earnings, real estate, or other assets in danger because our loans have always been non-recourse.
For you and your lawyer, Tribeca Lawsuit Loans wants to make the process and loan payment procedures as feasible as possible. You will be asked for details regarding your IVC filter settlement suit, including your anticipated settlement when you click Apply now on our page.
To talk with a helpful financial professional right now, call us toll-free at 866-388-2288.
What is an IVC settlement?
A victim who has been harmed as a result of an implanted IVC filter negotiates a settlement with the device’s manufacturer. The goal of this process is to come to an agreement on how much money the maker should pay the plaintiff as restitution.
What is the average payout for an IVC filter lawsuit?
Depending on the IVC filter rulings and the background of mass tort litigation, payouts may range from $100,000 to $500,000 for substantial damage claims. Even yet, there is no question that some cases will reach settlements above and below that limit.
Apply for an IVC Filter Lawsuit Loan Today
Tribeca Lawsuit Loans aims to make the application and repayment processes as simple as possible for you and your attorney. When you head over to our Apply Now page, you’ll be prompted to provide information about your IVC filter settlement case, including your expected compensation amount.
Depending on the specifics of your situation, we may be able to provide you with up to $1,000,000 in as little as 24 hours after approval! Apply today for FREE!