The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search instagram avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content

IVC filters are inserted through an artery and deployed with spider-like legs designed to both catch blood clots before they find their way to the lung and cause what could potentially be a fatal pulmonary embolism, and to hold the filter in place at the intended insertion point. However, recent inferior vena cava (IVC) filter lawsuits have alleged failure or migration of the filter, causing in some cases serious health issues.

A November IVC filter lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleges that the Greenfield IVC filter the plaintiff received sometime prior to 2004 migrated away from the original point of insertion and perforated her vena cava, causing a number of health complications, including:

  • Severe pain
  • Weight loss
  • Shortness of breath
  • Asthma
  • Confusion

A growing issue with the newer generation of IVC filters is that they are designed to protect against the passage of blood blots for a definite period of time, and then retrieved when the danger has passed. However, concern has grown that too many IVC filters are not being removed in a timely manner and instead allowed to remain in the body, exposing patients to unnecessary risk.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

The Greenfield IVC filter, manufactured by Boston Scientific, is only one of several IVC filter manufacturers, including C.R. Bard and Cook Medical, which are facing similar lawsuits. Cook faces more than 100 lawsuits pending in federal multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of Indiana involving its Celect and Gunther Tulip filters, and C.R. Bard is named in approximately 50 lawsuits involving the company’s Recovery, G2, and G2 Express IVC filters.

The November lawsuit against Boston Scientific alleges that although the company had knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the product as early as 2004, Boston Scientific continued to actively market and sell the Greenfield IVC filter, ignoring the risks.

One Comment

  1. Gravatar for Christian

    the Boston Scientific filters were used for a much shorter timer period, and implanted in far fewer patients, than the Bard ones that are more commonly the subject of plaintiff IVC lawsuits.

Comments for this article are closed.