First Bard IVC Filter Trial Scheduled

(Feb. 21, 2018) The Bard Recovery Blood Clot Filter Flawedfirst Bard IVC trial has been scheduled to be heard next month. The first jury trial against medical device maker C.R. Bard is set for March 14, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lawsuits filed over Bard IVC filters claim the blood clot filter device can migrate, perforate, and break up into fragments which can travel to vital organs and lead to catastrophic injuries.

3,500 Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits

More than 3,500 plaintiffs have had their Bard IVC filter lawsuits consolidated in the C.R. Bard MDL litigation venue established in Phoenix. Since August 2015, all personal injury and product liability lawsuits filed against Bard in the federal court system have been centralized. U.S. District Judge David Campbell presides in the District of Arizona as part of the multidistrict litigation.

Bellwether Trials

The first scheduled trial in any mass tort litigation is informally considered by legal scholars to be a bellwether trial. These first trials generally set the tone for a given litigation. They can often help determine the merits of not just one plaintiff’s case but all plaintiffs’ cases.  The defense goal in these cases is to have them dismissed outright, if possible, while plaintiffs work to prove to a jury that the product in question is defective and fails to pass muster in any fair basic cost-benefit analysis.

Defendants in these cases will usually attempt to extol the virtues of their beleaguered device and will further attempt to show it as not only necessary but superior to other available options at the time of implant.  The Plaintiffs side, by contrast, will work to show the device is perhaps entirely unnecessary and/or unreasonably dangerous. They will also try to prove to the jury that alternative treatments were available which were both safer and better than the device which was used.

In the first Bard IVC filter lawsuit scheduled for next month, a woman was implanted with a C.R. Bard G2 IVC filter in June 2007.  She alleges that she suffered personal injuries as a result.

C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and Cordis are the main IVC makers facing IVC filter lawsuits.  Cook Medical is exposed to 3,750 IVC filter lawsuits in a separate MDL based in Indiana.

What is an IVC filter?
IVC filters, or inferior vena cava filters, are made to trap or filter blood clots. They are tiny, umbrella-like devices placed in the inferior vena cava – the vein returning blood to the heart – to prevent blood clots in the leg from traveling to the heart, lungs, or even the brain.

Blood Thinners vs. IVC Filters
Blood thinners or anticoagulants are usually the first, best treatment option for blood clots in the leg.  Blood thinners, however, are contra-indicated for some people. A person with a pre-existing bleeding problem may not be able to take a blood thinner.  That unlucky person might be implanted with an IVC filter.

IVC Filters Meant for Temporary Use
IVC filters are meant to be implanted only for temporary use.  Once the threat of a clot has passed, they are supposed to be removed. In reality, however, most retrievable IVC filters are never retrieved, or they are not retrieved until after the safe removal window recommended by the FDA has passed.

IVC Filter Retrieval Problems
Some IVC filters cannot be retrieved at all. Sometimes the filter embeds in the vein wall, causing severe risk of injury. In several cases, the IVC filter has been found to embed and perforate the wall of the inferior vena cava. The filter can also tilt or break free from the insertion point and migrate to the heart and lungs. The brittle spider-legged struts of the IVC filter have been found to snap off and embolize or migrate into vital organs.

First Bard IVC Lawsuit Trial
Judge Campbell has ordered that the first Bard IVC filter bellwether trial will be conducted in two phases. The first will be a determination of liability, compensatory damages, and possible punitive damages. The second phase will determine the amount of any possible punitive damages.

IVC Filter Injury Lawsuits
If you have been implanted with a troublesome IVC filter (a Bard Recovery, G2, Cook Celect, Gunther Tulip, Cordis Optease, or Trapease) and you have suffered IVC filter failure or injuries by embedment, migration or embolization requiring emergency care or surgery, contact an IVC filter attorney today. Call 713-522-5250 or email Matthews & Associates Law Firm for a free legal consultation.  We are handling IVC filter lawsuits in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.



Failed Medical Procedures Proliferate

In November Cook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits2017, new studies revealed that stents put into heart disease patients to keep arteries open work no better than a placebo. Hundreds of thousands of US patients receive expensive stents each year for the relief of chest pain. Americans pay anywhere from $11,000 to $41,000 for a stent procedure that, it turns out, is useless for most.  The wasteful and dangerous stent is just the latest in a long string of expensive and unnecessary medical treatments foisted on us all in recent years. Failed medical procedures proliferate in our profit-driven medical culture.

IVC Filters, Power Morcellators, Hernia Mesh Failures
To name just three others in recent memory, IVC filters have also been found to be almost completely unnecessary.  They are rarely, if ever, worth the risk of their implantation.  Power morcellators used for hysterectomy or uterine fibroid removal are another dangerous “improvement”; they can be lethal when used on women with undiagnosed cancer.  And finally, hernia mesh (plastic) is another unnecessary and dangerous “improvement” recently unmasked.  Lawsuits have been filed against the promoters and makers of all three of these “improvements,” because risk-benefit analysis shows that each is not worth the risk of its potential failure.

The Latest Technology Prejudice
The Western medical establishment, run on the sick-model-profit-motive, is decidedly prejudicial when it comes to using the “latest” technology. Most of us have also been unwittingly conditioned to embrace the latest gadget or device.  If it’s new, we almost instantly imagine that it must be better.  We are, at the least, encouraged to think so by television advertisements, the shiny new brochures that litter doctors’ offices, our own doctor’s own glowing recommendation that this is the “new great thing.”  New being the operative word, and sadly, if our doctor doesn’t know what “the latest” device, drug, or procedure is, we are conditioned to think she has failed to keep up with the times, and are apt to look for another, more “up to date” doctor model.

Money Prejudice

There is also a money prejudice at work.   Conditioned to pursue and worship money and to listen to those who have it, we sacrifice or denigrate our own skills and aptitude, as we genuflect to the money.  If some computer, phone, or medical device company spent millions developing this latest thing, it must be good, we imagine, because why else would they have spent all that money?  (Our money prejudice is a non sequitur we ignore at our peril.)  At the very least, we want to benefit from this great new thing, this new peachy pinnacle of money power.

We’re All Sales People Now
In our personal lives we act as (unwitting) sales people as we show one another the slickest features on the “new” cell phone, the bells and whistles on the latest model car, television, or “Smart” (Read: stupid) appliance.  Most of us embrace so-called Smart meters without a whimper of protest (or a single minute of research), even though they don’t save us anything and actually cost us all more for power in the long haul.  (But thousands of citizens have complained to Calif. PG&E; so some people are, fortunately, paying attention.)

Stents Unnecessary (for most), Expensive, Dangerous
As for stents, “Several randomized trials have clearly shown that stents and angioplasties don’t prolong life or prevent heart attacks in stable patients. Now, we know that they don’t reduce angina either,” wrote Dean Ornish, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of California of San Francisco.

IVC Filter Problems
No study has proven IVC filters are necessary or more effective than the treatment which preceded them – blood-thinning drugs and dietary and lifestyle changes. No study has demonstrated the efficacy of IVC filters. They have been shown by thousands of people, however, to be quite dangerous. They can be impossible to remove. They have likely killed thousands of people whose deaths were not attributed to the filters. They can break apart and migrate and perforate the heart and lungs, causing life-threatening conditions. IVC filter lawsuits have, consequently, been filed by the thousands against Cook Medical, Bard, Boston Scientific, Cordis, and other IVC filter makers. Even the AMA, virtually always friendly with medical device makers, has admitted these devices have proliferated despite any evidence of efficacy.

Power Morcellator Problems
Power morcellators have been used for performing hysterectomies and removing uterine fibroids. They’ve been marketed as a more convenient method for surgeons and as a less invasive method for women to undergo certain surgeries. The problem is that when they are used on women with undiagnosed uterine cancer (not entirely uncommon), they can spread that cancer throughout the body, and weaponize it so that it becomes lethal. As a result, power morcellator lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon) and other morcellator makers.

Hernia Mesh Problems
Hernias were fixed for at least 100 years with simple suturing, until some medical device maker got the bright idea to insert plastic mesh into the human body. The procedure is easier for surgeons or doctors who don’t have the chops to perform a good old fashioned suturing job, and it promises the patient a “less invasive” procedure with faster recovery times. The problem, however, is that once that mesh goes in, it “meshes” with the body’s tissues, grows into them in ways which can make it all but impossible to remove. When infection follows, as it often does in the body’s natural foreign body reaction, the mesh often needs to be removed; but it can be all but impossible to remove. The unlucky mesh implantee can then be doomed to a lifetime of pain. In the “old” method of simple suturing, any complications could be much more easily corrected or revised. The doctor could even remove all the stitching, if necessary, and begin again.  Not so with mesh.

Failed Medical Procedures Proliferate
Given all these failed or at best dubious devices and procedures, people would be wise to do their research before submitting to the latest, greatest procedure, pill or medical device. Discerning patients might be wise to start by looking very closely at their own ingrained prejudices concerning the latest, greatest anything.  Advertising dollars run what we call “the news,” which is often little more than the promotion of corporate products and corporate values, which is no values at all beyond the blind worship of profits.

Patient, beware.



IVC Filter use decreases after FDA Advisory

Science Daily hasCook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits noted IVC filter use has decreased following an FDA advisory.  IVC filter use began declining last year after the National Institutes of Health noted in June 2016 that IVC filters carry real risks.  IVC filter injury lawsuits may also be slowing down the sale and use of these blood clot filters.

The NIH paper which appears to have slowed the use of IVC filters was titled: “Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the “One-Filter-for-All” Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis.”

IVC Filter Dangers Soft Played
IVC filter dangers have been soft played by their manufacturers. The paper’s opening abstract notes: “Deciding which IVC filters to use, when to use them, and for how long they should remain in place remains a highly complex process with many variables to consider. At a minimum, it is important to recognize that mechanical thromboembolic prophylaxis is not entirely benign.” That’s fancy language for admitting that IVC filters can be dangerous.

IVC Filter Dangers Increase over Time
The NIH noted that the use of IVC filters, especially retrievable filters, “is associated with morbidity risks that increase over time.” In plain language, that means the longer an IVC filters remains in the human body, the more likely it is to cause problems. Pieces of the delicate little thimble-sized devices can break off and migrate throughout the circulatory system, including into the lungs or heart. The entire IVC filter can also tilt sideways or embed into a blood vein wall, causing other serious problems, including death.

NIH: Remove Filter after PE Risk Resolves
NIH cautions that IVC “filters should be removed when the patient’s risk for PE has resolved.” The problem is that many temporary filters are being left inside of a person far longer than they should be. To further complicate matters, many IVC filter patients are not told by their doctors that their temporary filters should be removed after a given time. In addition, as many IVC filter lawsuits charge, IVC filter makers such as Bard and Cook Medical have not given their doctor customers clear instructions for when the filters should be removed.

The NIH saysIVC Filters fail to improve Anticoagulant Therapythat, “Postplacement clinical follow-up is critical to optimizing retrieval rates. Given the increased adverse effects and cost difference when using IVCF in a permanent manner, an important goal for appropriate IVC filter selection should be selecting those patients best served with a permanent filter due to the patient’s unique clinical conditions. . .” That statement is as close as the NIH gets to criticizing IVC filter makers for promoting their filters for too many people, for not properly screening potential filter implantees.

NIH also recommends further development and validation of nuanced, large-scale mathematical modeling tools to determine how best to use IVC filters. The NIH never directly criticizes any medical device manufacturer, but the language makes it clear that current practices fail IVC filter implantees, or are at least inadequate.

The paper also notes that IVC filter implantation rates remain high compared to rates in Europe.

IVC Filter Background
IVC filters are used to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a medical condition in which blood clots develop in the deep veins of the body, often in the legs, thigh, or pelvis. These clots can break loose and travel to the lungs and can cause a life-threatening condition called pulmonary embolism (PE).  IVC filters are implanted in people at risk for PE when anticoagulant therapy is ineffective or cannot be used.  They are supposed to be use only in those for whom anticoagulant therapy is contraindicated.

IVC Filter Safety, Efficacy Questioned
IVC filter use has increased rapidly over the years, despite no real evidence that the filters are necessary or effective.   In 2010, the U.S. FDA issued a device safety communication after reviewing more than 900 adverse filter events over a five-year period.  Those problems include device migration, embolizations, perforation of the IVC, filter fractures.  Some led to adverse clinical outcomes, often with the filter remaining in the body long after the risk of PE had subsided.  The FDA safety communication recommended filter removal as soon as protection from PE was no longer needed.


•  No Evidence Blood Clot Filters HelpBard IVC Filter Lawsuit | Blood Clot Filter Lawyer

•  Texas IVC Filter Lawsuit Filed

•  Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

•  Cook IVC Filter Attorney

•  IVC Filters poor choice for Trauma Victims

•  IVC Filter use decreases after FDA Advisory


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.



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.




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.



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.



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.



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.



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.