IVC filters are medical devices designed to prevent life-threatening blood clots. But when these temporary filters are left in for too long, they may cause damage to internal organs, severe pain, and even death.
Law firms seeking defective medical device cases such as IVC filter cases can find pre-qualified and fully examined signed cases with Broughton Partners. Our legal case generation services connect retained plaintiffs with personal injury law firms such as yours. Victims are looking to hire IVC filter injury lawyers to get compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and their pain and suffering. Your law firm can get IVC filter lawsuit leads delivered with relevant case documents by contacting our team at (912)-304-4444 or fill out a quick online form.
Connect With Qualified IVC Filter Lawsuit Leads
IVC Filter victims will begin their search for legal help online. Our legal case generation services begins tracking IVC Filter lawsuit leads the moment potential plaintiffs come into contact with our team online or via a phone call.
We have our very own in-house call center that is staffed 24 hours by multi-lingual specialists. All IVC Filter lawsuit leads are examined by our in-house call center via customized questions and a qualification process that is based on your law firm’s case criteria.
When our team finds qualified IVC Filter lawsuit leads, we then gather case documents that your law firm would need to start working the cases right away.
Our innovative case-acquisition platform is constantly being updated to ensure that our team is only tracking quality IVC Filter lawsuit leads.
Broughton Partners wants to help your law firm by creating an effective campaign for high-quality IVC filter lawsuit leads and providing you with potential IVC Filter cases to increase your revenue. Our goal is to help victims of defective medical devices find legal help via our network of websites and targeted online advertising.
Case-Ready IVC Filter Lawsuit Leads
Broughton Partners doesn’t just deliver retained IVC Filter plaintiffs, we go further by providing IVC Filter lawsuit leads with pre-packaged case documents such as hospital files and device information. We want to save your law firm’s time and give you everything you need to start working the case immediately. The IVC Filter lawsuit leads that we find are real victims who have legitimate IVC Filter injury cases.
Finding IVC Filter lawsuit leads can be challenging, especially leads that are case-ready with retained plaintiffs. Broughton Partners can help save your law firm’s time by performing the tedious work of examining potential IVC Filter plaintiffs and filtering out ineligible leads.
What is an IVC Filter?
An IVC filter, which is also known as an inferior vena cava filter or blood-clot filter, is a medical device that’s designed to save lives. It’s implanted in the inferior vena cava in order to reduce the risk of pulmonary emboli. The small wire filter catches blood clots before they get to the lungs or other vital organs. Blood clots are normally meant to stop blood from flowing out of the body, but sometimes a clot may inappropriately develop within an artery or vein. This could cause a heart attack, stroke, or other life-threatening medical condition.
When an IVC filter is implanted, it catches the clot and allows blood to freely flow around the blockage. Over time, the body’s natural anticoagulant functions will break it down. If a blood clot filter is not implanted, the embolism may cause blockage of the pulmonary artery, resulting in chest pain, difficulty breathing, and even death.
IVC filters are often utilized in patients who have a high risk of developing blood clots and are unable to take anticoagulant medication. Over the last 20 years, the number of IVC filters implanted in patients has skyrocketed. In 1999, there were only about 49,000 IVC filters placed in the United States. By 2012, that number had reached well over 250,000. From 1999 to 2008, the use of IVC filters has increased by 111.5%.
Although IVC filters were considered a viable treatment option for those with a high risk of developing pulmonary embolism, concerns over the safety and effectiveness of these medical devices have increased. The number of injured patients has also increased, causing hundreds of IVC filter lawsuits to be filed. Patients filing lawsuits will be actively seeking personal injury law firms. Broughton Partners tracks only quality cases and our team of specialists wants to help your law firm connect with IVC filter lawsuit leads.
When are IVC Filters Needed?
IVC filters are not for everyone. Doctors will sometimes recommend IVC filters to those at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT). This is a condition in which blood clots develop in the deep veins.
The filters may also be implanted in those who are at risk of pulmonary embolism but can’t undergo anticoagulation therapy.
Finally, patients who already have large clots in the inferior vena cava or iliac veins are also candidates for these filters.
Removing the IVC Filter
The FDA recommends that patients get their IVC filters removed as soon as the need for pulmonary embolism protection is passed. It is crucial that patients don’t keep their IVC filters longer than needed because these devices may increase the risk of new blood clot formation in the abdomen and legs.
Types of IVC Filters
There are two types of IVC filters: permanent and retrievable.
Permanent IVC filters are surgically implanted in patients and designed to stay there. This is an option for patients in need of long-term protection from blood clots. The rate of complications is higher, however.
Retrievable, also called optional or convertible, filters are the more popular of the two. They are designed to be removed after the risk of pulmonary embolism has passed. Just a few of the most well-known retrievable IVC filters include:
- Cook Medical Celect
- C.R. Bard Denali
- Rex Option Elite
- Cordis Optease
IVC Filter Risks
Those who require short-term protection typically receive retrievable IVC filters. That means after the risk has passed, the filter should be removed. Many types of IVC filters, including BARD IVC Filters, are made to be retrievable. Unfortunately, some remain in patients long after the risk of pulmonary embolism is over.
Here are some potential risks:
- The filter moves or changes position, complicating the retrieval
- The filter perforates the inferior vena cava or internal organs, causing internal damage
- The filter breaks apart into smaller pieces, traveling to the heart or lungs
IVC Filter Side Effects
If the IVC filter moves or breaks apart, patients may suffer from some of the following symptoms:
- Chest pain
- Pain in the abdomen
- Device Migration
- Filter Fracture
- IVC Perforation
- Pulmonary Embolism
- Device Infections
In one case, a woman suffered from intermittent pain in her abdomen that became worse and worse as time went on. Back in 1992, she received an IVC implant after being diagnosed with a life-threatening deep-venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The device remained implanted for more than 18 years.
Eventually, it came loose and became embedded in her intestines, causing immense pain. These side effects are not always easily diagnosed as a result of IVC filters because they can affect parts of the body far from where the device was implanted.
IVC Filter Makers
Patients who have had any of the following IVC filter implants will need legal representation:
- Günther Tulip Filter,
- Günther Tulip® Vena Cava Filter
- Günther Tulip, Mreye
- Cook Celect® Vena Cava Filter
- Cook Celect Platinum
- C.R. Bard G2
- C.R. Bard G2x
- C.R. Bard Denali
- C.R. Bard Meridian
- C.R. Bard Eclipse
- C.R. Bard Recovery
- Cordis OptEase
- Simon Nitinol Filter
- Gianturco-Roehm Bird’s Nest
- Vena Tech LGM
- Vena Tech LP
- Cordis TrapEase
- ALN Filter
- Rex Medical Option
- Crux Filter
- Cook Medical Celect
IVC Filter Lawsuit Background
Despite being designed to prevent life-threatening blood clots, IVC filters have ended up causing greater risk in many patients. Lawsuits against the makers of IVC filters claim that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and physicians of the risks involved with the medical devices.
In fact, the FDA received 921 adverse reports related to IVC filters between 2005 and 2010, including 328 involving device migration, 146 involving detachment, 70 involving perforation of the inferior vena cava, and 56 involving filter fracture.
Despite these warnings from the FDA, many IVC filter manufacturers still do not let patients know the risks.
In fact, current lawsuits claim that C.R. Bard knowingly hid the results of its own study because it found the filters to be dangerous. According to NBC News4, the doctor of the internal study concluded: “Further investigation…is urgently warranted.”
Patients Claim IVC Filters Defectively Designed
As a result of the unexpected side effects and complications associated with IVC filters, patients have filed thousands of lawsuits against the makers of the devices, including Cook and Bard.
In one case, Kelly Vlasvich and her husband Chris sued Bard for negligence and breach of implied warranty.
Kelly had a Bard G2 filter implanted in 2009. It wasn’t until 2011 did she begin experiencing complications. Doctors eventually discovered that the IVC filter had been fractured and a strut had become lodged in the right ventricle of her heart. Kelly claims this resulted in “significant medical expenses and has endured extreme pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement and other losses, which are permanent in nature.”
Vlasvich’s case is similar to many other cases pending in court. Thousands claim the devices have broken, fractured, or migrated. Some say the IVC filters have even been responsible for serious injury and death.
FDA Issues Warnings & Recalls
With a rise in reports of complications, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has taken some action against IVC filters.
According to a study published by JAMA Medicine in August 2010, researchers found that there was a high rate of fracture and emobilization associated with two IVC filters that were manufactured by Bard. On the same day, the FDA issued a safety communication warning of potential complications in retrievable IVC filters. According to the warning, there were 921 reports of IVC filter complications including fractures, thrombosis, and device migration. These reports were taken over a 5-year period. The FDA then recommended that patients get their IVC filters removed as soon as the need for pulmonary embolism protection passed.That communication was later updated in 2014 with more recently published research and postmarket studies. The update found that long-term use of the IVC filter device could potentially cause deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
Along with safety communications with healthcare professionals and patients, recalls have also been issued for several IVC filters. In 2005, the Greenfield Vena Cava Filter was recalled for manufacturing defects. Most recently in 2016, a Class 2 recall was issued for the Bard Denali IVC filter for missing warnings.
IVC Filter Lawsuit Settlement Amounts
IVC filter settlements typically only occur after several individual cases have been tried in court. These bellwether cases allow both sides to determine the terms of a settlement.
- In 2013, patient Lisa Davis reached a settlement with Bard after claiming her G2 filter had migrated to her heart. She sued Bard for failing to warn her physicians of risks and a misrepresentation of the device as safe.
- In January 2015, Kelly Vlasvich and Bard reached an agreement over her accusations of negligence and a breach of warranty against Bard.
- In February 2015, another settlement against Bard took place shortly after Kevin Phillips went to trial in Nevada. He claimed his IVC filter was fractured and a piece of the device perforated his heart.
- In March 2017, Boston Scientific settled a wrongful death lawsuit with an undisclosed amount after its Greenfield vena cava filter allegedly caused fatal injuries to a woman.
- In March 2018, Bard was ordered to pay Sherri Booker a payout of $3.6 million after her IVC filter broke into small pieces and pierced one of her blood vessels.
- In 2018, Cook was ordered to pay a Houston firefighter $1.2 million after he suffered blood vessels and organ perforations from his Cook Celect IVC filter.
More IVC Filter Lawsuits Expected
Many of the thousands of pending lawsuits are awaiting the outcome of the bellwether trials. Although one bellwether trial resulted in a victory for Cook Medical in 2017, two more were slated for trial in 2018. The outcomes of these trials will provide more information to determine the terms of a settlement.
Groups of plaintiffs have also tried to file class-action lawsuits against Bard. A judge refused to grant the class certification in 2017 after concluding the claims lacked cohesiveness.
With the continued use of IVC filters by patients around the country, it is expected that more lawsuits will continue to be filed in the coming months. Those who have been implanted with an IVC filter and suffered from complications are encouraged to contact a qualified attorney.
What Claims Are We Monitoring IVC Filter Lawsuit Leads For?
Mistakes by manufacturers such as Bard and Cook Medical have caused innocent people physical harm, emotional stress, and financial loss. Victims of this IVC Filter Lawsuit want to hold the manufacturers of these defective devices responsible for their pain and suffering. These harmful devices should have been taken off the market immediately or underwent more rigorous safety tests before being put on the market. Hundreds of patients could be entitled to compensation for damages and Broughton Partners wants to help these victims find your law firm.
IVC Filter Lawsuits are now being filed against C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and Greenfield. Our in-take process will be examining IVC filter lawsuit leads for the following claims:
- They failed to remove the IVC filters as soon as reports of adverse events were found
- They failed to properly report any adverse events
- They failed to properly warn patients and doctors about the potential side effects
- They failed to design a safe device
Broughton Partners Connects Attorneys with Prequalified IVC Filter Lawsuit Cases
Personal injury law firms searching for IVC filter cases can gain a competitive advantage by working with Broughton Partners. With our innovative legal case generation system, attorneys are matched to the retained IVC Filter lawsuit plaintiffs. Broughton Partners performs all of the heavy lifting in legal marketing and provides your law firm with quality cases. This will give you more time to focus on your clients and their needs.
Spend less time strategizing for legal marketing and let Broughton Partners deliver case-ready claimants to you. We don’t just provide you with case leads, we will go further by providing fully vetted and signed IVC filter lawsuit leads. Contact us today to learn how your law firm can gain more IVC Filter cases.
- RadiologyInfo.org. “Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Removal”, RadiologyInfo.org, https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=venacavafilter. Accessed March 3, 2019.
- John Hopkins Medicine. “Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter Placement”, John Hopkins Medicine, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/inferior-vena-cava-ivc-filter-placement. Accessed March 3, 2019.
- Thuong G. Van Ha, M.D. “Complications of Inferior Vena Caval Filters”, US National Library of Medicine, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036364/. Accessed March 3, 2019.
- Duszak R Jr, Parker L, Levin DC, Rao VM. “Placement and removal of inferior vena cava filters: national trends in the medicare population.”, US National Library of Medicine, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21723485. Accessed March 3, 2019.
- Stacey Naggiar, Stephanie Gosk and Tim Sandler. “HEART HEALTH Did Forged Signature Clear Way for Dangerous Blood-Clot Filter?”, NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-health/did-forged-signature-clear-way-dangerous-medical-device-n417246. Accessed March 4, 2019.
- Stanford Health Care Now. “Removing Tiny Filter Embedded in Vein Takes Expertise Unique to Stanford Hospital”, Stanford Health Care, https://stanfordhealthcare.org/stanford-health-now/2011/karnstedt-kuo.html. Accessed March 4, 2019.
- University of Miami School of Medicine and Jackson Memorial Hospital Department of Radiology. “Endovascular Techniques Advanced Techniques for Complicated Ivc Filter Retrievals: a Clinical Perspective”, Vascular Disease Management, https://www.vasculardiseasemanagement.com/content/advanced-techniques-complicated-ivc-filter-retrievals-clinical-perspective. Accessed March 4, 2019.