When medical tools work as designed they are amazing things. They can prolong lives and enhance the quality of life for patients and ease the burden on patients’ families. When they don’t work as expected medical devices can do extra harm than good, maybe killing the patient. One instance is the Cook IVC filter. Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits Are Not Class Action Lawsuits, in which each plaintiff can expect to receive only a small settlement.
What is an IVC Filter?
The inferior vena cava (or IVC) is a huge vein carrying blood from the lower and central body into the heart where the blood is drawn into the lungs in order to have oxygen added to it.
An IVC filter is a tool that’s surgically inserted into the IVC just below the kidneys in cases where there is fear a blood clot from the legs (deep vein thrombosis) may move from the body into the heart or lungs (pulmonary embolism).
An IVC filter is a funnel-shaped device (looks like a small badminton shuttlecock) made of wire which is assumed to act like a net, catching or breaking up a clot while permitting blood to flow through it.
The consequences can be catastrophic and have caused the losses of some patients. Some have bits of a filter attached in areas where curative removal is too dangerous and victims live with a possible medical time bomb in their bodies. Others have had pieces of the filters fortunately removed.
There are numbers of lawsuits pending on one company, the Cook Group, Inc. The lawsuits started in 2012 and have continued transferred from around the country and incorporated in federal court in Indianapolis (the company is based in Indiana).Compensation may be available through a Bard Recovery IVC filter lawsuit for individuals implanted with this filter.
These goods liability cases allege that the filters are unreliable for their intended use and Cook should be held accountable for the harm they cause. According to one study, 100% of Cook’s filters fail if left in victims’ bodies for 2½ or more months.
Each year, doctors insert about a quarter of a million IVC filters into patients at risk for blood clots. New studies have shown serious dangers associated with these devices.
Doctors usually treat blood clots with an anticoagulant, also know as a blood thinner. However, blood-thinning pills are not safe for some people. If you are at risk for a pulmonary embolism (blood clot in lungs) your doctor may insert an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. IVC filters are devices put into a large vein in your abdomen to catch blood clots.You can also connect with Bard IVC Filter Attorneys for IVC Filter Complications Lawsuits cases.
- The longer an IVC filter remains, the higher the risk of injury. Once a patient’s risk for blood clots has passed, retrievable IVC Filters should be eliminated — between 1-2 months after implantation. Long-term risks associated with IVC filters include lower limb deep vein thrombosis and IVC occlusion. In one study, only 8.5 percent of IVC filters were successfully removed.To read more on IVC filters you may head over here.
- The device is connected to 27 deaths. A recent NBC investigative report revealed that at least 27 deaths have been linked to IVC filters. According to the news outlet, “Serious questions are being asked about IVC filters implanted in thousands of Americans at risk for blood clots — including whether the producer told all it knew about potentially fatal flaws.”
- The FDA has received many reports of serious injuries. The device can migrate, break, move to the heart or lungs, perforate and be difficult to remove. These injuries may be related to how long the filter has been implanted.In most states, the legal claims that may be brought include oversight, strict liability for device defect, strict liability for manufacturing defect, strict liability for failure to warn, and breach of guarantee.
- A new study suggests that IVC filters do not provide any medical benefit. “High rates of prophylactic IVC filter placement have no effect on reducing trauma patient mortality and are linked with an increase in DVT events.”
More and more people who have been injured by the use of faulty inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are making the decision to file an IVC filter lawsuit. These individuals who underwent IVC filter complications claim the medical devices have design defects and were not well tested before going to market.
In just the last couple of months, hundreds of plaintiffs have added their names to two separate multi-district litigation (MDL) proceedings against IVC filter companies C.R. Bard and Cook Medical, Inc. The patients in these IVC filter lawsuits allege that both organizations failed to warn the common public about the possible health risks associated with Bard IVC filters and Cook IVC filters.You can also consult your ivc case with bard ivc filter lawsuit.
An IVC filter is a small, cone-shaped medical device that is implanted into the inferior vena cava, just below the kidneys. The inferior vena cava (vena cava is Latin for ‘hollow vein’) carries blood from the lower body up to the heart. IVC filters are designed to capture an embolism—or blood clot—that has cut away from one of the deep veins in the leg as it travels up to the heart and lungs.
The problem discussed in the IVC filter lawsuits is that the filters can separate and move within the inferior vena cava. This movement is called IVC filter migration and it is one of many IVC filter complications. An IVC filter can also break, allowing shards of the device to move through the inferior vena cava into other organs, most notably the heart. IVC filters were made to fulfill an essential task, but a growing number of plaintiffs who have chosen to join an IVC filter lawsuit claim that some filters have a higher risk of breaking, potentially creating life-threatening damage.