Home » Practice Areas » Defective Drug and Product Attorneys in Louisville » IVC Filter Injury Lawyer in Louisville Kentucky

IVC Filter Injury Lawyer in Louisville Kentucky

You may be entitled to an IVC filter lawsuit if you suffered internal damage or pain from IVC filters or a loved one died from complications. Contact our Louisville Kentucky defective device attorneys today to find out more.

What are IVC Filters?

An inferior vena cava filter (IVC) is a small metal medical device that is placed in a large abdominal vein that sends blood back up from the lower body to the heart. An IVC might be needed if there is a danger of a blood clot forming in the legs or pelvis. That clot can travel to the patient’s heart or lungs and cause a pulmonary embolism. An IVC filter can be of great help in catching blood clots and preventing them from reaching the heart or lungs. They’re ordinarily used with patients who either will not respond well to conventional anti-coagulants or can’t be given such treatment. Modern IVC devices might be retrieved after the danger of a blood clot passes. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. are the manufacturer of most of the retrievable IVC devices on the market. Cook Medical is also a major manufacturer of the devices, and Cook is defending lawsuits in connection with two models of its IVC filters.

Retrievable IVC Devices
Nearly all IVC lawsuits involve retrievable devices. They’re known to sometimes fracture and migrate to other parts of a patient’s body and cause veins to be punctured, imbed in the heart or other organs, cause chronic pain result in other significant complications. Blood clots are even reported as having formed at the location of the device itself. One study that was performed by the New England Society for Vascular Surgery found a 31 percent fracture rate in IVC filters. Most of the fracture splinters migrated to the heart. Other noted complications with IVC devices follow:

  • Malposition that increases the chance of both blood clots getting through the device or the device migrating.
  • Blockage whereby blood cannot travel from the lower extremities to the heart.
  • Vein and organ perforation after splintering.
  • Removal after the device has been left in the patient for too long.

Bard and Cook are the Major Manufacturers
A small minority of IVC filter lawsuits have been filed against two other manufacturers, Cordis and Angiotech. The primary allegation against all of the companies is that they have been manufacturing defective IVC devices while failing to adequately warn both medical professionals and the general public about the potential risks involving the devices. Bard and Cook are defending nearly 6,000 lawsuits in federal court. Others have been filed in state courts.

Retrievable Filters
IVC filters were originally intended to be permanently implanted. After retrievable IVC devices were approved in 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that they should be removed between 29 and 54 days. Keep in mind that the longer that an IVC device remains inside of a patient, the more difficult it becomes to remove it. The more likely it is that it will fracture or migrate too. Removal has never been tried on some devices, and leaving them to fracture or migrate can result in some of the following severe adverse events:

  • Perforation of blood vessels and organs including the heart and lungs.
  • Development of new blood clots.
  • Blockages and pulmonary embolism.
  • Cardiac failure.
  • Fatalities.

Multidistrict Litigation
All federal Bard and Cook cases are in multidistrict legislation. The Bard cases are in Arizona, and the Cook cases are in Indiana. The state cases remain where they were filed, but most of them have been stayed pending multistate litigation. What that means is every federal court IVC case that was filed anywhere in the country is being heard in either Arizona or Indiana. Federal rules allow for multidistrict litigation when substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against a defendant in numerous federal courts across the country. The court that the cases are transferred to oversees pretrial procedure and motions. For purposes of trial, the case returns to the federal court district that it was filed in. Multidistrict litigation operates in the interests of judicial economy and fairness to the parties.

Class Actions
Class action lawsuits against Bard have been filed in California, Pennsylvania and Florida. We’re not representing anybody in a class action against an IVC manufacturer. When a class action is filed, only one law firm represents all members of the class who claim to be damaged. A severely damaged member of a class action might be forced to settle their case for far less than its actual value. Our law firm understands the great economic and non-economic damages that IVC filter failure patients have endured. Our objective is to maximize every client’s settlement or verdict by opting out of a class action and pursuing individual damages on their behalf.

They Probably Knew and Chose Not to Disclose
IVC issues pose life threatening concerns. Many of the victims and the families of those who died due to IVC issues are turning to the legal system for help. Along with alleging that IVCs are dangerous devices, they’re contending that that it’s more likely true than not true that manufacturers knew of the IVC dangers, but they failed to advise health care providers, patients and the FDA accordingly. The probability of these devices fracturing or migrating is high, and it’s our opinion that the manufacturers were fully aware of these issues and withheld them in order to obtain FDA approval.

Our confidential consultations are absolutely free. If we’re retained to represent you, we’re not going to charge you a legal fee of any kind unless we obtain a settlement or verdict for you. The law imposes certain time constraints on you, so don’t sit on your rights. Contact us right away for that free confidential case consultation.

An inferior vena cava filter (IVC) is a small metal medical device that is placed in a large abdominal vein that sends blood back up from the lower body to the heart. An IVC might be needed if there is a danger of a blood clot forming in the legs or pelvis. That clot can travel to the patient’s heart or lungs and cause a pulmonary embolism. An IVC filter can be of great help in catching blood clots and preventing them from reaching the heart or lungs. They’re ordinarily used with patients who either will not respond well to conventional anti-coagulants or can’t be given such treatment. Modern IVC devices might be retrieved after the danger of a blood clot passes. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. are the manufacturer of most of the retrievable IVC devices on the market. Cook Medical is also a major manufacturer of the devices, and Cook is defending lawsuits in connection with two models of its IVC filters.

Retrievable IVC Devices
Nearly all IVC lawsuits involve retrievable devices. They’re known to sometimes fracture and migrate to other parts of a patient’s body and cause veins to be punctured, imbed in the heart or other organs, cause chronic pain result in other significant complications. Blood clots are even reported as having formed at the location of the device itself. One study that was performed by the New England Society for Vascular Surgery found a 31 percent fracture rate in IVC filters. Most of the fracture splinters migrated to the heart. Other noted complications with IVC devices follow:

  • Malposition that increases the chance of both blood clots getting through the device or the device migrating.
  • Blockage whereby blood cannot travel from the lower extremities to the heart.
  • Vein and organ perforation after splintering.
  • Removal after the device has been left in the patient for too long.

Bard and Cook are the Major Manufacturers
A small minority of IVC filter lawsuits have been filed against two other manufacturers, Cordis and Angiotech. The primary allegation against all of the companies is that they have been manufacturing defective IVC devices while failing to adequately warn both medical professionals and the general public about the potential risks involving the devices. Bard and Cook are defending nearly 6,000 lawsuits in federal court. Others have been filed in state courts.

Retrievable Filters
IVC filters were originally intended to be permanently implanted. After retrievable IVC devices were approved in 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that they should be removed between 29 and 54 days. Keep in mind that the longer that an IVC device remains inside of a patient, the more difficult it becomes to remove it. The more likely it is that it will fracture or migrate too. Removal has never been tried on some devices, and leaving them to fracture or migrate can result in some of the following severe adverse events:

  • Perforation of blood vessels and organs including the heart and lungs.
  • Development of new blood clots.
  • Blockages and pulmonary embolism.
  • Cardiac failure.
  • Fatalities.

Multidistrict Litigation
All federal Bard and Cook cases are in multidistrict legislation. The Bard cases are in Arizona, and the Cook cases are in Indiana. The state cases remain where they were filed, but most of them have been stayed pending multistate litigation. What that means is every federal court IVC case that was filed anywhere in the country is being heard in either Arizona or Indiana. Federal rules allow for multidistrict litigation when substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against a defendant in numerous federal courts across the country. The court that the cases are transferred to oversees pretrial procedure and motions. For purposes of trial, the case returns to the federal court district that it was filed in. Multidistrict litigation operates in the interests of judicial economy and fairness to the parties.

Class Actions
Class action lawsuits against Bard have been filed in California, Pennsylvania and Florida. We’re not representing anybody in a class action against an IVC manufacturer. When a class action is filed, only one law firm represents all members of the class who claim to be damaged. A severely damaged member of a class action might be forced to settle their case for far less than its actual value. Our law firm understands the great economic and non-economic damages that IVC filter failure patients have endured. Our objective is to maximize every client’s settlement or verdict by opting out of a class action and pursuing individual damages on their behalf.

They Probably Knew and Chose Not to Disclose
IVC issues pose life threatening concerns. Many of the victims and the families of those who died due to IVC issues are turning to the legal system for help. Along with alleging that IVCs are dangerous devices, they’re contending that that it’s more likely true than not true that manufacturers knew of the IVC dangers, but they failed to advise health care providers, patients and the FDA accordingly. The probability of these devices fracturing or migrating is high, and it’s our opinion that the manufacturers were fully aware of these issues and withheld them in order to obtain FDA approval.

Contact our Louisville Kentucky Personal Injury Lawyers Today

Our confidential consultations are absolutely free. If we’re retained to represent you, we’re not going to charge you a legal fee of any kind unless we obtain a settlement or verdict for you. The law imposes certain time constraints on you, so don’t sit on your rights. Contact us right away for that free confidential case consultation.

Share This Page


Tell a friend:


Free Case Evaluation

 

Your privacy is important to us.

Our no fee promise

With the NO FEE PROMISE, you never pay us a fee unless we win or settle your case Call us for a free consultation.