Dr Shezad Malik Law Firm has offices based in Fort Worth and Dallas and represents people who have suffered catastrophic and serious personal injuries including wrongful death, caused by the negligence or recklessness of others. We specialize in Personal Injury trial litigation and focus our energy and efforts on those we represent.
IVC Filter Injury. Under the guidance of the federal court overseeing the thousands of Cook IVC filter lawsuits, Cook Medical and plaintiffs lawyers are engaged settlement negotiations.
IVC Filter Injury. Cook IVC Filters Celect, and Gunther Tulip linked to catastrophic injuries including wrongful death.
5,000 Cook IVC Filter Injury Claims
Cook IVC Filters Injury claims are on the rise, the personal injury and product liability lawsuits continue to pile up, with no end in sight. Injured folks allege that the Cook company’s blood-clot filters failed catastrophically puncturing vital organs and blood vessels, requiring emergency surgery to remove them.
Cook IVC Filters Injury. Cook Celect and Gunther Tulip IVC filters under fire over blood vessel perforation and vital organ damage requiring emergency surgery
Cook Celect, Gunther Tulip IVC Filters
The number of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter injury and death lawsuits continue to climb and now are past the 3,000 mark over design defects leading to fractures, migration, tilting and perforation.
Recent medical studies have linked IVC filters to serious and catastrophic injuries.
What are IVC Filters?
A device known as a vena cava filter (IVC filter) was implanted by doctors in hundreds of patients who are unable to take anticoagulants (blood thinners) in order to prevent blood clots from moving to the lungs. But recently two IVC filter devices named Cordis OptEase and Cordis TrapEase have came under scrutiny after lawsuits reveal potential design defects.
The Cordis Optease IVC filter is an egg-shaped wire device and Cordis TrapEase IVC filter is a star-shaped wire device. They are both implanted in a blood vessel called the inferior vena cava, which separates the heart and lungs. The filters are designed to catch blood clots before they enter the lungs and cause a pulmonary embolism.
The Cordis TrapEase IVC filter is supposed to be permanent, but studies have linked it to a 50% risk of fracture within four years. In another study, researchers warned about an “extremely high risk” of fracture within 2-3 years.
Recent medical studies have linked inferior vena cava filters (IVC filters) to serious risks when the filter remains implanted in a person’s body for longer periods that what is recommended. Complications from prolong use of IVC filters have led to several lawsuits recently across the United States.
Surgeons implant retrievable inferior IVC filters in the veins of patients who are unable to take anticoagulants (blood thinners) in order to prevent blood clots from moving to the lungs. IVCs catch the clots in the blood stream and, over time, the clots dissipate. But the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) received hundreds of adverse reports about the retrievable filters. Reported complications included punctured organs, blood vessels and filter migration to different parts of the body.
In 2010, the FDA warned the retrievable filters posed risks of filter fracture, device migration and organ perforation and should be removed as soon as the patient’s risk for blood clots subsided. The FDA updated safety communication in 2014, stating most devices should be removed between the 29th and 54th day after implantation. But the warning signs came too late for some. Plaintiffs began filing lawsuits across the country claiming the filters caused harm and death.
A device known as a vena cava filter (IVC) was implanted by doctors in hundreds of patients who are unable to take anticoagulants (blood thinners) in order to prevent blood clots from moving to the lungs. Three devices manufactured by C.R. Bard quickly came under criticism after reports surfaced of complications.
C. R. Bard IVC filters catch the clots in the blood stream and, over time, the clots dissipate. The IVC filter is retrievable and it is not designed to be permanent.
Soon after IVC filters were widely used, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) received hundreds of adverse reports about the retrievable filters. Reported complications included punctured organs, blood vessels and filter migration to different parts of the body.
The number of lawsuits filed against the manufacturers of IVC filters are on the rise in the United States, with more than 400 pending cases. Currently, there are two Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the U.S. concerning IVC Filters, with 343 lawsuits against Cook Medical that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, and 382 lawsuits consolidated against C.R. Bard in the U.S. District Court in the District of Arizona.
Five products produced by C.R. Bard and Cook Medical are at the center of these lawsuits. These products include:
South Dakota Bard IVC Filter Injury
Amber Nordin, from South Dakota earlier this year filed a personal injury and defective product liability lawsuit against C.R. Bard, because of the company’s Eclipse blood clot filters broke apart and embedded inside her internal organs.
Ava Langford from Missouri, has filed a lawsuit claiming that she developed serious and severe personal injuries when a Bard G2 inferior vena cava (IVC) filter fractured and broke apart.
Langford filed her complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that a Bard G2 IVC filter failed and fractured. Langford received the medical device to prevent pulmonary embolism.
Every year, thousands of patients are implanted with a retrieval inferior vena cava filters but they are not warned by doctors about the risk of injury from these temporary devices.
And as time passes, patients tend to forget that they had this device implanted and the first inkling that they had the device, is when they suffer serious injury from a complication.
Experts say that there is a very high failure rate with these devices, which only increases with the duration of the filter in the body, and eventually all of the devices will fail. So 100% failure of the device becomes not a question of “if” but “when.”
According to Langford, the G2 filter is defectively designed, but Bard claims that the IVC filter device had “enhanced fracture resistance” and “increased migration resistance.” Langford claims that Bard failed to perform adequate clinical testing to ensure the filter device was safe and effective.
The filter devices are used when there is a blood clot in the leg known as a deep vein thrombosis and there is a contraindication to using blood thinners, which is the standard therapy for leg blood clots.
These devices are supposed to trap blood clots from traveling from the leg to the lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism, which can be fatal.
These devices unfortunately, have been linked to hundreds of adverse event reports where they puncture the vena cava, tilt out of position or migrate or break apart and cause metallic fragments to travel to the heart or lungs, a condition known as embolization.
2 Major Manufacturers of IVC Filters
There are 2 major manufacturers of IVC filters, Cook Medical and C.R. Bard. The complaints in the Bard and Cook IVC Filter litigation have similar allegations, the injured patients claim that the manufacturers designed and sold retrievable defective devices that were unreasonably dangerous.
FDA Warnings
The FDA in August 2010, announced a warning about the risk of IVC filter injuries, noting that they had received hundreds of adverse event reports where filter devices broke apart and travelled to other areas of the body or caused perforation and migration.
Bard IVC Filter Claims Consolidated in Arizona
All filed Bard Inferior Vena Cava filter injury, perforation and migration lawsuits, are consolidated and centralized in Phoenix, Arizona for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Existing cases pending throughout the federal court system have been transferred to U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, who will oversee the multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings. Bard Peripheral Vascular is the manufacturer of these Bard IVC filters and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.
This consolidation and centralization of Bard IVC filter cases only applies to cases filed in the federal court system. According to latest court data there are 100 filed Bard Recovery filter and Bard G2 filter lawsuits currently pending in Arizona federal court. As the litigation matures it is expected that the final tally will consist of several thousand injury and defective product liability cases.
Benefits of MDL Consolidation and Centralization
The MDL streamlines the trial process, by preventing duplicative discovery and all the plaintiffs and defendants are gathered before one judge.
Cook IVC Filter Claims Consolidated in Indiana
MDL has been established for all Cook Medical IVC filter lawsuits, involving injuries with the Cook Celect and Gunther Tulip filters. There are more than 200 complaints over those products centralized before U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana.
Lawsuits filed against Cook Medical over their defective IVC filters are gaining traction and moving towards trial. U.S. District Judge Young recently announced that a group of 10 Cook Medical IVC filter lawsuits have been chosen for early trial dates that will begin late 2016.
MDL Bellwether IVC Filter Trials
It is common in complex multidistrict ligation involving pharmaceutical and medical device cases, to have mini trials, known as bellwether trials.
A small group of cases will be prepared for early trial dates. The outcome of these trials are designed to aid settlement negotiations, especially if the jury sides with the injured plaintiffs and awards a large damage award or in cases involving gross negligence, awarding punitive damages, which are designed to punish the company for its reckless behavior.
The truth is that thousands of people have been severely injured by the side effects of these medical devices. And shockingly the injuries were avoidable simply enough by the timely and diligent removal of these temporary devices.
Every year, thousands of patients are implanted with a retrieval inferior vena cava filters (IVC) but they are not warned by doctors about the risk of injury from these temporary devices.
And as time passes, patients tend to forget that they had this device implanted and the first inkling that they had the device, is when they suffer serious injury from a complication.
According to some experts, there is a very high failure rate with these devices, which only increases with the duration of the filter in the body, eventually all of the devices will fail. So 100% failure of the device becomes not a question of “if” but “when.”
What is an IVC Filter?
The filter devices are used when there is a blood clot in the leg known as a deep vein thrombosis and there is a contraindication to using blood thinners, which is the standard therapy for leg blood clots.
These devices are supposed to trap blood clots from traveling from the leg to the lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism, which can be fatal.
Dallas Fort Worth Injury Lawyer Blog