Cook IVC Filter Lawyers can depose ex-Cook President, says Judge

Cook IVC filterCook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits lawyers can depose an ex-Cook president, a judge ruled on September 13, 2017.  Cook defense lawyers had moved to block the deposition.  Attorney David Matthews of Matthews & Associates Law Firm will handle the deposition for the plaintiff in the case.  Mr. Matthews represents the plaintiff in the first Cook IVC filter case scheduled for trial this fall.

U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young issued an order that overruled Cook’s appeal from the denial of a Motion for Protective Order Barring Proposed Deposition of former Cook Group, Inc. president Kem Hawkins.  The Court ordered that Cook must produce its former executive for a deposition by September 27, 2017.

In early 2017, Matthews & Associates requested the deposition of Kem Hawkins to question him over IVC filter documents that included emails from his personal email account.  Plaintiffs contend those documents reveal Mr. Hawkins was intimately involved in the decision-making process and strategy regarding critical issues in the case.  The issues included decisions regarding the testing, design, marketing, and production of the Gunther Tulip and Celect IVC filters.

Defendants had filed a Motion April 27, 2017 for a Protective Order to prevent the Plaintiffs from deposing Mr. Hawkins.  However, on June 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied Cook’s request. He stated: “Hawkins was involved in the decision-making process and strategy regarding the testing, design, marketing, and production of the [Gunther Tulip and Celect] filters.”

The judge rejected Cook’s attempt to thwart potentially damaging discovery:
“… Hawkins is the better source for information related to this litigation because he was the president of Cook during the time the Gunther Tulip and Celect IVC filters were manufactured and sold in the United States. Moreover, Hawkins regularly communicated on a personal email account, which Plaintiffs suspect the Cook Defendants did not search when producing responsive documents to their discovery requests. This all suggests that Hawkins has relevant knowledge that is not already available to Plaintiffs.”

The District judge agreed, adding that a review of the sealed documents shows Mr. Hawkins was involved in “strategic decisions regarding the enhancement of the Tulip filter and the development of the Celect filter to increase market share. He was aware of the timetable for the Celect clinical trials and sought to speed up the process to get Celect on the market. Most importantly, the documents reflect that he was aware of the risk that both IVC filters could perforate the wall of the vena cava.”

Cook IVC Filter Lawyers can depose ex-Cook President, says Judge
The Cook Defendants in the case must produce Mr. Hawkins for deposition within two weeks of the Court’s September 13, 2017 Order.  The ruling means Plaintiffs are entitled to seek relevant documents from Mr. Hawkins and ask him questions about his personal email account.

The first Cook IVC Filter trial is scheduled for an Indiana courtroom in November, 2017.

RELATED

Share

Illinois Man files Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

An Illinois man filed a Bard IVC filter lawsuit August 25, 2017, in the multi-district litigation (MDL) court set in Arizona.  The man was implanted with the Meridian® Inferior Vena Cava Filter (IVC Filter) made by C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc.

Related:  Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

Bard Meridian® IVC Filter
The IVC Filter was surgically implanted in the man on March 19, 2014 at an Illinois  hospital. The blood clot filter was supposed to prevent a pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs), but instead caused the man severe side effects.

Bard Filter not FDA Approved

The Meridian IVC Filter is one of the newer IVC Filters on the U.S.  market.  It was not approved by the FDA through normal channels.  It was, rather, “cleared” by the agency in 2011 under the auspices of its controversial 510(k) process.  An accepted 510(k) application allows a medical device maker to put a product on the market if it is judged by FDA to be “substantially equivalent” to other, similar medical devices.  This market route, however, also leaves a given device maker vulnerable to potential civil litigation.  By contrast, devices approved under regular channels are given “pre-emption” (via the Draconian 1976 Medical Device Act), which allows a given device maker to injure people at will without fear of civil liability. (See Wyeth v. Levine)

Defective Medical Device
The Illinois man’s lawyers accuse C.R. Bard of selling a defective medical device and inadequately testing the Meridian IVC Filter for safety.

C.R. Bard faces 13 charges in the lawsuit:

1.  strict products liability – manufacturing defect
2.  strict products liability – information defect (failure to warn)
3.  strict products liability – design defect
4.  negligence – design
5.  negligence – manufacture
6.  negligence – failure to warn
7.  negligence per se
8.  breach of express warranty
9.  breach of implied warranty
10. fraudulent misrepresentation
11. fraudulent concealment
12. violations of applicable law prohibiting consumer fraud, unfair & deceptive trade practices
13. punitive damages

Illinois Man files Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit
The lawsuit was filed on August 25, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona — Case No. 2:17-cv-02875-DGC.

This lawsuit will be centralized with more than 2,200 other IVC filter lawsuits now pending against C.R. Bard in Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 2641) – In Re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation.

RELATED

 

Share

Alabama Man files IVC Filter Lawsuit

An Alabama man who required open-heart surgery when an IVC Filter migrated to his heart six days after being implanted has filed a lawsuit against Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson. The IVC filter makers stand accused of selling a defective medical device and failing to adequately warn of its dangers.  Cordis is a subsidiary of J&J.

Related:  IVC Filter Lawsuit | Lawyer

The lawsuit was filed by an Alabama man injured by the OptEase® Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter (“IVC Filter”) made by Cordis and J&J.

The man was implanted with the Cordis IVC Filter on April 20, 2016 in LaGrange, Georgia by Dr. William E. Behm at West Georgia Medical Center. He was discharged from the hospital in good health.

Cordis OptEase® Retrievable IVC Filter
Six days later, the man was readmitted to the hospital after feeling severe chest pains. An emergency cardiac catheterization revealed that the Cordis IVC Filter had migrated to his heart. The wayward filter was obstructing his right ventricle and right atrium.

The man was then transferred to Piedmont Atlanta Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. On April 29, 2016, he underwent emergency open-heart surgery. Doctors removed the OptEase IVC Filter and repaired damage which the filter had caused to his heart’s atrium, ventricle, and tricuspid valve.

The man’s physicians said, “Surgery was necessary to treat and prevent imminent death or life-threatening deterioration and failure of his circulatory system.”

One-Month Recovery from Surgery
Following open-heart surgery, the man spent one month recovering in hospital. On May 23, 2016, he was transferred to an inpatient rehabilitation facility.  There he spent nearly four months recovering from his life-threatening injuries.

Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson stand accused, in the lawsuit petition, of selling defective medical devices and failing to warn the man about dangerous risks.

The lawsuit is Case No. 60565803.  It was filed August 17, 2017 in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

4,000 IVC Filter Lawsuits Pending

Roughly 4,000 other IVC filter lawsuits are now pending against B. Braun, Cook Medical, C.R. Bard, Johnson & Johnson, Rex Medical, and other medical device makers in state and federal courtrooms nationwide.

RELATED

Share

Texas IVC Filter Lawsuit Filed

A Texas man hasCook IVC Filter Attorney filed an IVC Filter Lawsuit in Houston’s Harris County courthouse.  The man has filed a case naming the implanting doctor and Cook Incorporated, a/k/a Cook Medical, LLC.

State Jurisdiction

Cook Medical is headquartered in Indiana, but the implanting doctor practices in Texas; so the plaintiff has exercised his right to demand a jury trial in Harris County. The plaintiff’s claims in the action were also brought solely under state law. The petition states that the “Plaintiff does not herein bring, assert, or allege, either expressly or impliedly, any causes of action arising under any federal law, statute, regulation, or provision.  Thus,” it argues, “there is no federal jurisdiction in this action on the basis of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. section 1331.”

The plaintiff was surgically implanted with an IVC filter in 2015, by Dr. Adrian A. Wong, a specialist in Interventional Radiology. Dr. Wong implanted a Cook Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter in the plaintiff.

Failed Removal Attempts
Seven weeks later, on or about April 23, 2015, surgeons attempted to remove the Celect IVC filter but were unable to remove it. According to the petition, the filter had tilted and imbedded into the wall of the plaintiff’s vena cava.  Another removal attempt was made June 2015, but was also unsuccessful. A leg or strut of the IVC filter had protruded through the man’s vena cava wall and lodged in a position adjacent to his aorta, according to the petition.

The man is now at risk for future migrations, perforations, and/or fractures from the irremovable filter, charges the petition. He also faces numerous health risks from the retained filter, including increased risk of blood clots and the risk of death. He will require ongoing medical care and monitoring for the rest of his life and may ultimately require more surgery in further attempts to remove the filter.

The Doctor’s Responsibility Alleged
The petition further alleges that the doctor knew or should have known, inter alia, that only certain patients were proper candidates for an IVC filter, and the doctor also should have known that:

  • the longer a Celect IVC remains in the body, the higher the risk of device fracture or failure
  • the Celect IVC filter is not effective to prevent clots and/or increases the risks of clots
  • safer alternatives to the Celect IVC filter existed
  • Celect filters frequently tilt, migrate, perforate, fracture, and thus involve a high increasing degree of risk to a patient implanted

Lack of Clinical Testing, Contraindications

The petition further claims Cook failed to conduct any clinical testing, such as animal studies; that Cook knew or should have known the Celect filter had a high rate of fracture, migration, and excessive tilting and perforation of the vena cava wall once implanted. It further claims that Cook knew or should have known such failures exposed patients to serious injuries that include death, hemorrhage, cardiac/pericardial tamponade, cardiac arrhythmia, and other symptoms similar to myocardial infarction – severe and persistent pain, perforations of tissue, vessels, and organs; and inability to remove the device. Cook also knew or should have known certain conditions or post-implant procedures such as morbid obesity or open abdominal procedure could affect the safety and integrity of the Celect IVC Filter.

The petition also claims Cook should have known these risks for the Celect were and are substantially higher than other similar devices. The petition also alleges that Cook failed to issue a recall of the Celect Filter and failed to notify customers that a safer device was available.

Texas IVC Filter Case Filed

The case is No. 201703885 in Harris County District Court. Defendants are Adrian A. Wong, M.D.; Cook Incorporated; a/k/a Cook Medical, (LLC).  Attorney David Matthews of Matthews & Associates Law Firm represents the plaintiff.

RELATED

Share

Indiana IVC Filter Case Filed

IVC FilterAn Indiana woman has filed an IVC filter case against Indiana-based Cook Medical, Inc., a/k/a Cook Medical Group. The petition was filed July 27, 2016 in Marion County Superior Court.

IVC Filter Perforation
The lawsuit petition states that the plaintiff was implanted with a Cook IVC filter in  April 2005. In May 2016, doctors discovered the Cook filter had perforated her IVC. The lawsuit further alleges that the woman is now at risk for future Cook filter fractures, migrations, perforations and tilting. It charges that she faces numerous health risks, including the risk of death. Further, for the rest of her life, she will require ongoing medical monitoring as well as anti-coagulants.

IVC Filters
IVC filters are designed to filter blood clots (called “thrombi”) that would otherwise travel from the lower portions of the body to the heart and lungs. IVC filters may be designed to be implanted either temporarily or permanently within the vena cava.

The inferior vena cava is a vein that returns blood to the heart from the lower portion of the body. In certain people thrombi travel from vessels in the legs and pelvis through the vena cava into the lungs. These thrombi often develop in the deep leg veins, causing “deep vein thrombosis” or DVT.  An IVC filter such as the Cook filter is designed to prevent thromboembolic events by filtering or preventing blood clots/thrombi from traveling to the heart and/or lungs.

The Indiana lawsuit petition says the Cook filter has caused the plaintiff to undergo medical treatment as a result of the device’s failure.

The petition reads: “Plaintiff has incurred significant medical expenses and has endured physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses, some of which are permanent in nature. As a result of the failure of the Cook Filter, Plaintiff has become impaired and will remain so in the future. The defective Cook Filter remains in Plaintiff’s body.”

Lawsuit Counts
The lawsuit counts are Negligence, Strict Product Liability – Failure to Warn, Strict Product Liability – Defective Design, Breach of Express & Implied Warranty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Medical Monitoring, Punitive Damages, Loss of Consortium.

Medical Monitoring Case
The petition also makes a medical monitoring claim that intermittent imaging studies are needed to determine whether the Cook Filter has failed. Such imaging studies typically include computed tomography scan (CT Scan) to visualize the filter. CT Scan imaging produces an image of the filter to show whether it has fractured or migrated.

The petition also says that patients requiring medical monitoring are recommended to undergo regular and frequent imaging studies of the device or portions of it at least once or twice annually.  It charges that the potential for future device failure exists as long as the device, or portions of it, remains within the patient’s body.  Consequently, IVC filter patients require regular and frequent medical monitoring for the duration of the device’s life inside them.

Indiana IVC Filter Case Filed

Attorney David Matthews of Matthews & Associates represents the plaintiffs.  The case is Jane Doe v. Cook Incorporated, Inc., Cook Incorporated, Inc. a/k/a et. al in Marion County Superior Court, cause no. 49D101607CT026764.

Related

Share

IVC Filter Lawsuit filed in Illinois

A Cook IVC gunther-tulipfilter lawsuit was filed in Illinois’ Cook County Sept. 12, 2016. The plaintiff’s surviving spouse filed the case against Loyola University Health System and Cook Medical Inc., an Indiana corporation. The case specifically concerns Cook’s Günther Tulip IVC filter.

Causes of Action
Causes of Action claimed in the petition are Negligence, Medical Negligence, Strict Product Liability – Failure to Warn, Defective Design, Manufacturing Defect, Breach of Express & Implied Warranty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Wrongful Death, Loss of Consortium.

Death of Plaintiff
The plaintiff died at age 78 in Sept. 2014. He had been implanted with a Cook IVC filter in 2009. According to the petition, the man received the implant prior to a spinal procedure at Loyola University Medical Center in Cook County, Illinois.

IVC Filter Failure
IVC filters are advertised to prevent deep vein thrombosis. The petition says autopsy performed at the Autopsy Center of Chicago revealed “massive bilateral acute pulmonary embolism; deep venous thrombosis and complete occlusion of the left iliac vein; and a recent pre-mortem thrombus within the IVC filter.”

IVC Filter Problems Known
The petition states that “Defendants knew or should have known of the dangerous propensities of the IVC filter (to) cause injury and subsequent death, similar to the injuries sustained by the Decedent.”

“Further,” the petition states, “several published clinical studies showed IVC filter lacked efficacy, were inferior to anticoagulation therapy, and were associated with higher rates of DVT, including one of the only randomized controlled trials ever performed on IVC filters PREPIC.”

The petition also charges that Cook continued to promote its Günther Tulip filter as safe and effective even though clinical trials did not support its long or short term efficacy.

IVC Filter Lawsuit filed in Illinois

The case is No. 2016L009027 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Dept., Law Division. Defendants are Loyola University Health System, Cook Inc. et al. David P. Matthews of Matthews & Associates represents the plaintiff.

Related

Share

Technology runs Amok

TechnologyPhone Spy runs amok today. Most people seem to accept that the “latest” technology, whatever it is, should be embraced and celebrated. Each new apple product or so-called “Smart phone”or appliance is trotted out with a public relations blitzkrieg that seamlessly blends “news” with advertising. Many of us and our friends and relatives become salespeople ourselves, promoting the latest gadgets to one another.

Machines Ascend as Humanity Descends

Mahatma Gandhi was still alive as the industrial revolution began to alter the values of the world. Technology began to make human beings less important in the means of production, as in Henry Ford’s assembly lines. Machines were made to seem increasingly indispensable, human beings less and less so.

Machines replace and delimit Humanity

Human survival becomes more and more dependent upon our ability to run machines, while increasingly the machines run us. More and more jobs are replaced by machines. People become secondary. Human labor is needed primarily to keep the machines going, while liquid capital from labor is used to pay for “new and improved” or “upgraded” machines: smart phones (not so smart for us), televisions, automobiles, dishwashers and other so-called “Smart” appliances and “Smart” meters, which are not smart at all. Meanwhile, credit cards replace cash so that everything is cleverly calibrated to track our every move, purchase, emotion, to corral us for advertisers who want to understand and manipulate us in order to sell us more machines.

Hate Not The Machines

Mahatma Gandhi said, “I hate not the machines, but this growing passion for machines. I hate the passion for the machines which work upon diminishing man power. (I) want the wealth to be accumulated not just in a few hands but for all the people in the world.”

The Worship of Technology

Gandhi was not against technology. He was against worshiping technology as a means of salvation. He thought salvation could not come from outside; it could only be attained internally. Gandhi thought that technology encouraged the soul to be led astray by greed.

Machines Triumph
The dishwasher, the leaf blower, the so-called “Smart” TV, cell phone or computer – we quickly buy whatever new technology is thrown at us. Most hold a decided prejudice that whatever is newer must necessarily be better. Old bad, new good, seems to be the prevailing “wisdom” with all new technologies. Those who aren’t using the latest whatever are seen as fools or losers. Why wouldn’t one want to “take advantage” of the latest gadget?

Medical Device Technology runs Amok

In the world of medicine, there may be no better example of technology run amok than with IVC blood clot filters. Thousands of IVC filter lawsuits have been filed because any risk-benefit analysis shows they are clearly not worth their risks. Anyone taking a few minutes to handle and examine one of the flimsy IVC filter devices could readily see that the notion of jamming one into a human being’s vena cava is a terrible idea.

Studies show IVC filters fail to improve anticoagulant therapy, while studies also show they are not being retrieved in timely fashion. The longer they remain in the body, the more difficult they are to remove. In addition, the longer they remain implanted, the more likely they are to cause problems, including life-threatening complications.

Morcellator Lawsuits are being filed because power morcellators were sold as less invasive for hysterectomy or uterine fibroid removal than prior methods of surgery for women; however, power morcellators can spread undetected cancer that can kill the woman who has been unwittingly talked into having one used on her.

Plastic mesh was sold to gynecologists primarily as a money-making scheme. Johnson & Johnson, Bard, AMS, and other mesh makers used very well-funded advertising blitzes to convince doctors that this product was a good idea. It was easier to put plastic mesh into a woman to treat pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence than it was to find a surgeon with the surgical chops to do the job the way it had been successfully done for more than 100 years.

Metal on metal hip implants were, at one time, the latest, greatest thing. The problem was and is that they grind against each other and eventually cause tiny shards of metal to enter the bloodstream. Cobalt and other metal poisoning results, in addition to enormous pain as the metal on metal hip replacements fail.

Technology runs Amok

Here’s a short list of technological “advances” trotted out as advances that are questionable at best, and nothing of the sort if one looks closely at them, and what their real cost is to human beings.

•  IVC Filters
•  Power Morcellators
•  Transvaginal (Plastic Mesh)
•  GMO / Monsanto “Foods”
  Leaf Blowers
•  Smart Meters

Each of these fails a risk-benefit test. Each was meant to replace something that already worked just fine. Each of these cost more than the thing it was meant to replace. Each causes at least as many problems as it solves. Each nullifies or belittles the human element, the man power of which Gandhi spoke. Each takes more from us than it gives. Would that we could turn them all off, or stop using them, and take back some of the humanity that we’ve allowed their makers to steal from us.

Related

Share

New Laser Technique removes IVC Filters

Despite thereIVC Filter Graphic being no evidence blood clot filters help the overall population, or that they increase mortality for trauma patients, some 250,000 IVC filters are implanted in people yearly. Even more concerning, many of these devices are not removed as soon as they should be. Research has meanwhile shown that the longer IVC filters remain in the body, the more likely they are to cause problems.  Fortunately, help may be on the way.

New Technology could save Lives

New technology is showing some promise, paving the way for the possible safe removal of IVC filters. New technology and methods could potentially save thousands of lives.

FDA recommends Quick IVC Filter Removal
Studies estimate that only 8% of IVC filters are removed from patients within 3.8 years of their being implanted. The FDA, meanwhile, recommends IVC filters be removed 24 to 59 days after being implanted.

The problem is that IVC filters aren’t always easy to remove, even within the recommended window; and the longer they remain implanted, the more difficult they can be to remove. IVC filters like those made by C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and Cordis Corporation, have been named in blood clot filter lawsuits which allege they are prone to perforating the inferior vena cava wall. They can also migrate throughout the body and fracture, causing their parts to embed into vital organs. One client at Matthews & Associates Law Firm, which represents people who have filed IVC filter lawsuits, has an IVC filter embedded in a kidney. The entire kidney will likely need to be removed to safeguard the person’s life.

When an IVC filter fails within a person’s body, it can be extremely difficult to remove the device. Besides the kidneys, pieces can lodge in the heart or lungs,  and devices that have perforated the vena cava wall often can’t be removed without causing further damage.

Serious, Life-threatening Complications

IVC filters left inside one’s body can cause serious, life-threatening complications, including internal bleeding or strokes. Patients left with the defective devices may live in constant fear that the wrong movement could jar a jagged piece loose and cause fatal damage. Into this fearful scenario comes this hopeful news.

Five-Year Study shows Promise for Filter Removal

A five-year study examined the safety and efficacy of using advanced laser technology to remove previously irretrievable IVC filters. Endovascular laser-assisted retrieval has been applied to successfully remove several different types of IVC filters. Researchers who worked in the study believe that nearly all defective IVC filters can be removed using this laser technology.

New Laser Technique removes IVC Filters

More clinical studies need to be performed using this procedure, which for now appears able to give many thousands of people hope for a better, healthier future unencumbered by IVC filter fears.

Related

Share

IVC Filters Poor Choice for Trauma Victims

IVC filters are IVC Filter Graphica poor choice for trauma victims. Patients implanted with IVC filters were no more likely to survive more than 24 hours after injury than those who received no filter, according to a study published in JAMA September 28, 2016. The research examined 451 trauma patients given an IVC filter, against a control group of 1,343 not given a filter. The study also referenced several other points which give cause to question whether the benefits of IVC filters are worth their risks.

No Significant Difference

The research study concluded there was “no significant difference” in survival for trauma patients with or without an IVC filter, whether or not they had venous thrombosis.

Death Risks rise with IVC Filter Dwell Time

The authors’ conclusions called for a reexamination of the use of filters in the trauma population, especially given the fact that removal rates are low “and there is increased risk of morbidity in patients with filters that remain in place.”  The longer the filter remains in place, the more likely it is to cause problems.

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)
VTE is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S., with some 900,000 patients a year developing VTE or pulmonary embolism (PE). Blood thinners are typically used for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients or for treatment of acute venous thromobosis. Blood clot filters are often implanted in patients for whom blood thinners are contraindicated, as they often are for trauma patients.

IVC Filter Use Increases despite Lack of Evidence

Study authors Shayna Sarosiek, MD; Denis Rybin, PhD; Janice Weinberg, ScD; and others point out that despite a “lack of high-quality evidence” to prove the safety and effectiveness of IVC filter placement, IVC filter use has increased in the trauma population. The authors set out to “delineate the long-term mortality risk associated with IVC filter placement in trauma patients with and without a VTE. They performed a retrospective cohort study of trauma patients at Boston Medical Center at Boston University School of Medicine.

IVC Filters –No Benefit

Once the trauma patients survived the initial injury for 24 hours, there was no significant difference in mortality between those who received an IVC filter and those who did not. The data the researchers saw showed no benefit or decrement in long-term mortality for trauma patients with IVC filter insertion, whether or not patients had DVT or PE. Most filters were placed in those without VTE, with 91.6% (413/451) not removed. That indicates long-term IVC filter placement did not increase survival through prevention of future PE or decrease survival because of IVC filter complications (embolism, ruptured viscera, filter fracture).

IVC Filters Need Removal
The authors also noted that most IVC filters are not retrieved in a timely fashion and no clear protocol has been set for a timetable to retrieve them. But the authors said that their study was designed to examine mortality only, “and any nonlethal morbidity attributed to filter insertion would not be evident in these data.

Study Conclusion
The authors concluded that their data indicate IVC filters “should not be placed in trauma patients in an effort to decrease all-cause mortality.”  They also noted that “given the expected morbidity of long-term IVC filter use, filters should be removed as soon as a patient’s contraindication to anticoagulation resolves.”

IVC Filter Lawsuits

The failure of IVC filter manufacturers to inform implanting surgeons of the need to closely monitor IVC filter implantees, and to remove their filters as soon as anticoagulation resolves, is just one factor which leaves IVC filter makers vulnerable to IVC filter lawsuits.

Related

Share

Law Firm Filing IVC Filter Lawsuits

Matthews & Associates Law FirmIVC Filter is handling IVC filter lawsuits nationwide against all the major makers of IVC – Inferior Vena Cava – blood clot filters. The firm, with offices in Houston and New York, is engaged in litigation against Bard, Cook, Cordis, and Rex, the major IVC filter manufacturers.

IVC Filter Injury Research

Matthews & Associates attorneys have reviewed thousands of internal documents and dozens of published medical studies. They have also consulted with several leading experts in the field. These reviews and consultations have found, unfortunately, that mounting evidence indicates most IVC filters will eventually fail. In addition, many temporary filters are not being retrieved in a timely fashion, and many IVC filter implantees are unaware they have a filter implanted.

Several different injuries may constitute a potential IVC filter case. The firm is investigating cases in which one of the following IVC filter injuries obtain:

1) any part of the IVC filter fractured or broke off;
2) the IVC filter or a part of the IVC filter moved or migrated from its original location;
3) the filter perforated the inferior vena cava or other organ;
4) the filter is embedded or tilted;
5) a doctor tried to remove the filter without success;
6) a doctor recommended removal but felt the procedure was too risky;
7) a doctor diagnosed someone, AFTER the filter was implanted, with one of the following medical conditions, which could be associated with the IVC filter:
a. caval thrombosis;
b. pulmonary embolism;
c. DVT /post-thrombotic syndrome; or
d. thrombosis/embolism.

Filter Failure more likely over time

Virtually all of the medical evidence that our attorneys have reviewed indicates that the longer an IVC filter remains in the body, the more likely it is to fail. In addition, the medical literature we have reviewed indicates that damage caused by the filter tends to be progressive.

For these reasons, people with an IVC filter in place might be wise to get screened even if they have had a prior test which showed that the filter was intact and in place.

Statutes of Limitations Issues

If upon testing and screening by a doctor, someone is diagnosed with one of the seven conditions listed above, that person might may want to contact an attorney to consider an IVC filter lawsuit. Anyone who has had complications arising from the removal or attempted removal of an IVC filter, or has been diagnosed by a doctor with any of the conditions above, or who has experienced a failed attempted removal of the filter, could trigger a deadline to file a lawsuit in court. That person might be wise to contact an attorney if they do not already have legal representation. Lawsuits have strict time limits for filing, and IVC filter lawsuits are no different.

Related

Share