IVC Filter Lawsuits

As of December 2024, inferior vena cava filter multidistrict litigation against  C.R. Bard was no longer open following confidential settlements. Individual lawsuits continue to be filed and Maria Dalbotten’s case filed against C.R. Bard in 2016 is currently advancing toward trial.

There were still 7,578 pending cases in MDL 2570 against Cook Medical before Senior Judge Richard L. Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Individual lawsuits against IVC filter manufacturers ALN, Argon, Boston Scientific, Cordis and Rex Medical were also in progress.

IVC filters are medical devices implanted in patients’ inferior vena cava to reduce the risk of serious blood clots. Implantation usually occurs after surgery to remove clots. Doctors may also use them when patients are at risk of clots but can’t take blood thinners. If these cage-like devices break or move in the body, they can cause damage to internal tissue and organs or even death.

People are filing IVC filter lawsuits because implants to prevent embolisms migrated or broke. People are also filing lawsuits for complications resulting from the procedure required to remove the device. More than 7% of patients required two or more removal attempts.

The bulk of these lawsuits are product liability cases. The defendants in these cases are the manufacturers of the filters rather than medical professionals as in malpractice cases.

Recent medical research has raised concerns about the use of IVC filters, as there is no demonstrable decrease in mortality with their use. However, a recent study demonstrates that the results of filter removal procedures improve dramatically when the implanting doctors are active in their follow-ups with patients.

IVC Filter FDA Response and Recall

In July 2015, the FDA issued a formal warning letter to C.R. Bard concerning violations found at two Bard facilities. These violations included misbranding and quality system regulations infractions. It also accused the company of manufacturing and selling non-approved medical devices.

In 2010 the FDA issued a communication advocating for the removal of IVC filters when no longer necessary, optimally 29-54 days after the original procedure. In 2014, the FDA updated their communication, reemphasizing the importance of removing IVC filters in the appropriate time frame. The FDA has issued a small number of recalls of IVC products for different reasons.

A recall isn’t necessary to file a lawsuit for damage or injury. For many of the lawsuits, the filers were patients whose IVC filters remained in place long after the advised 29–54-day period. These patients had no idea the doctors should have removed the filters.

You may be eligible to file a lawsuit if your IVC filter fractured, if the whole device or pieces of it migrated, if it perforated your organs or tissue or if removal of the filter caused complications. The families of patients who died from these issues may also be eligible.

A successful lawsuit can compensate you for emotional, financial and physical hardships. Compensation can also help you recover lost wages and cover further medical treatment. It’s crucial to speak with an experienced attorney who can assess your case.

C.R. Bard has negotiated both settlements in individual lawsuits and a global settlement for multidistrict litigation with more than 8,000 plaintiffs. Cook Medical chose the trial route, winning the first bellwether lawsuits but losing subsequent trials. Currently there are more than 7,900 cases in the multidistrict litigation docket against Cook.

Legal experts suggest the average amount awarded in an IVC settlement will vary. Factors affecting settlement amounts include the nature of the injury, the manufacturer, and the inclusion of punitive damages.