IVC Filter Attorney Near MeThis site explains why you could need a IVC Attorney
IVC Attorney Near Me
IVC filters are to prevent life-threatening blood clots, they are medical devices designed to stop a blood clot reaching your heart. When these temporary filters are left inside too long, they can cause injury to internal organs, cause severe pain, and even cause death. If you suffered any complications as a result of your IVC implant, you may be entitled to compensation.Request a IVC Filter Attorney Near Me Now
A IVC Attorney near me we will carefully review your file to see if your case may file an IVC filter lawsuit. Contact us today through our case evaluation form and a experienced attorney will contact you for a free consultation. All case evaluation are free with no strings attached.
One case recently, a woman had intermittent pain in her abdomen, and it became worse and worse over time. In 1992, she received an IVC filter after her doctor diagnosed her with a life-threatening deep-venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Her implant device remained implanted for over 18 years.
Inevitably, the device dislodged and became embedded in her intestines, causing her immense pain. The side effects aren’t always easily detected or diagnosed because they can affect many parts of the body far from where the device was implanted.
The IVC filter may detach and move within the Inferior vena cava. It may also break up into splinter like shards and may travel away from the device. These broken parts may then move through the inferior vena cava and end up migrating and lodging in other organs, most likely the heart.
There are lots of different kinds of IVC filters, varying in size, form and material. An IVC filter is a health device which is often set in an individual’s body to stop pulmonary embolus. Retrievable IVC filters ought to be removed once pulmonary embolism is effectively dealt.
If you think you were harmed by means of an IVC filter, it’s important you decide on a lawyer who’s well versed in defective device lawsuits. An IVC filter is extremely small in dimension, measured in millimeters (mm). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are supposed to deliver a safe alternate for preventing pulmonary embolism for patients who are unable to take blood thinning medication.
Once implanted, IVC filters could possibly migrate, malfunction, or fracture, resulting in severe injuries sometimes leading to death. Although they are intended to be permanent implants, some of them may need to be removed. Although they were originally approved to be used as a last resort (ie, in cases where blood thinning drugs were not effective), their use over the past 5 years. Retrievable IVC filters are made to be used for a short-term time period until the danger of blood clots has subsided.
What About IVC Attorney?
The filters are made to avoid this. IVC filters should shield patients from dangerous blood clots. They should be used only if other methods of blood clot prevention are not possible. They are supposed to stop blood clots from traveling around your body, and hundreds of thousands of patients have used them successfully. There are numerous different IVC filters available on the market today, and a few may provide more protection for patients than others.
There are two major varieties of filters. IVC filters ought to be used only if other procedures of blood clot prevention aren’t possible. There are numerous different kinds of IVC filters, varying in size, form and material. They are supposed to protect patients from dangerous blood clots. They are often utilized in patients who have a high risk of developing blood clots and are unable to take anticoagulant medication. These IVC filters ought to be removed the moment threat of pulmonary embolism subsides. An estimated 49,000 IVC filters are placed annually in america since 2005, meaning close to half a million people have these health care devices within their bodies.
Should you not know which kind of filter you’d implanted, we’ll find that information for you. When these filters are implanted in thousands and thousands of patients since their introduction, recent years have witnessed an increasing degree of alarm for their dangers. Up until recent decades, IVC filters weren’t always permanent. If you think you were harmed by means of an IVC filter, it’s important you select an attorney who’s well versed in defective device lawsuits. An IVC filter is a health device which is often set in an individual’s body to stop pulmonary embolus. In case you are suffering because of an IVC filter, consult with a skilled IVC filter attorney to talk about your legal alternatives. Request a IVC Attorney Near Me Now
The filter is surgically implanted in the IVC, the biggest vein within the body. These filters are found to fragment and cause embolisms within the body. An IVC filter is extremely small in proportion, measured in millimeters (mm). IVC filters should prevent blood clots from traveling about your entire body, and thousands and thousands of patients have used them successfully. Permanent IVC filters have existed for many years.
Because the law does change, this website and the info in it could have become outdated. Our attorneys think that thousands of different patients may be qualified to pursue compensation also. You should look for a lawyer who has substantial expertise in successfully handling similar circumstances. Device businesses have high powered attorneys who focus on defending these sorts of lawsuits. Frequently, Device businesses have high powered attorneys who focus on defending these sorts of lawsuits. Lawsuits stemming from IVC filter injuries are focused on many of the provider’s products. Plaintiffs are going to be able to do discovery, conduct depositions.
Without having a legal background yourself, don’t have any style of knowing what the situation could be worth. If you believe you might have an instance, reach out to the team at Discepolo for a completely free preliminary evaluation. Some cases have gone to trial simply to lose, but others are resolved for undisclosed quantities. It is necessary to talk about your particular case with our attorneys whenever possible.
The Little-Known Secrets to IVC filter attorney near me
IVC filter use has increased dramatically in the previous 30 decades, with over 200,000 devices utilized in 2012. The usage of IVC filters in the USA has sky-rocketed. Your information will stay confidential and an IVC attorney will supply you with a totally free legal consultation. Medical assistance has to be immediately sought in the event of a massive laceration.
IVC Filters are breaking inside patients, and metal parts are moving through the body; damaging the heart, lungs and causing internal bleeding!
An IVC Attorney will conduct an absolutely free confidential consultations, and if you to hire us, we never will charge you any fees or costs unless you first recover.
The lawsuit involving the IVC Filter states the manufacturers of the device failed to warn patients and physicians of the increased risks of the filter breaking, and metal fragments moving through the blood, potentially damaging an organ.
Attorneys argue that C.R. Bard (one of the manufacturers) hid the results of its own research which had found the filter dangerous, and even forged an employee’s signature on an FDA application in order to get approval.
Five products are most often involved in the IVC filter litigation: The Bard Recovery filter; The Bard G2 filter; The Bard G2 Express filter; The Cook Gunther Tulip filter; and the Cook Celect filter. Other filters causing problems include the Bard Eclipse, Bard Merdian, and Bard Denali.
Reported IVC Filter injuries and Complications
- Heart Attack
- Pulmonary embolism
- Chest pain
- Compromised respiration (breathing)
- Perforation/puncture of the inferior vena cava, heart, lungs, blood vessels or other internal organs
- Hemorrhagic pericardial effusion (excess fluid around the heart)
- Cardiac tamponade (compression of the heart caused by excess fluid around the heart)
- IVC filter embolization/movement (migration)
- Tilting/malposition of the IVC filter
- Fracture of the IVC filter
- Splintering of IVC filter
- Embedded IVC filter requiring surgery
- Difficulty removing the IVC filter
- Physician unable to remove/retrieve IVC filter
Video from NBC Investigations
Investigations are currently going on many types of IVC filters that may have caused dangerous situations for patients. If you have had any of the following IVC filter implants, please contact us immediately:
- Günther Tulip Filter,
- Günther Tulip® Vena Cava Filter
- Günther Tulip Mreye
- Cook Celect® Vena Cava Filter
- Cook Celect Platinum
- R. Bard G2
- R. Bard G2x
- R. Bard Denali
- R. Bard Meridian
- R. Bard Eclipse
- R. Bard Recovery
- Cordis OptEase
- Simon Nitinol Filter
- Gianturco-Roehm Bird’s Nest
- Vena Tech LGM
- Vena Tech LP
- Cordis TrapEase
- ALN Filter
- Rex Medical Option
- Crux Filter
- Cook Medical Celect
Several deaths have been caused by IVC filter migration.
In the IVC filter complications mentioned above, there are instances in which the filter tilts, causing it to not work improperly and become difficult to remove.
Wire in the Heart: Fracture and Fragment Embolization of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter into the Right Ventricle
“We report a case of a 58-year-old female who was found to have a fractured limb of her IVC filter in her right ventricle during a cardiac catheterization. A 25 mm radioopaque thin linear structure was seen in the proximal portion of the right ventricle. This has resulted in abnormal heart beating (arrhythmias), destruction of heart valves, indications of damage to the heart muscle, and the necessity of heart surgery to remove the device.” read more of this case, https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cric/2015/938184/
Device Perforation of IVC and Internal Organs
The inferior vena cava runs alongside many internal organs. When the filter punctures (pierces) the sidewall of the inferior vena cava it may damage that particular vessel, and also internal organs near it as well.
A study of 591 patients in 2013, who received an inferior vena cava filter between 2006 and 2009 found that 46% of the filters had penetrated the inferior vena cava and punctured adjacent organs. The plaintiff in a recent IVC filter lawsuit has alleged that his filter pierced the inferior vena cava next to his abdominal aorta. The filter cannot be removed, according to the lawsuit.
FDA Warning and Issues Safety Communications
Reports first surfaced in 2005 that the radial arms and struts of medical equipment manufacturer Bard’s Recovery IVC Filter had broken off inside the body of patients. Since that time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received around 1000 adverse reports involving the filters, primarily regarding the IVC filters fragmenting and embolizing inside the body.
Due to these reports, made by both physicians and patients, and extensive research of the filters, the FDA urged physicians to consider the risks before recommending the IVC Filter be installed in patients who are ineligible for anticoagulation therapy. The FDA also recommends that the filters be removed as soon as the risk of Pulmonary Embolism has passed.
Despite the FDA’s warning, Bard’s redesigned IVC Filter has been implanted in more than 65,000 patients.
The FDA issued a May 6, 2014 Alert concerning IVC Filters. The FDA warning to the public and doctors calls for removal of the IVC filter device as soon as the risk of pulmonary embolism is gone. The FDA has concluded that the risk of injury outweighs any potential benefit provided by allowing the IVC filter to remain implanted. Heath risks associated with IVC filters include filter fracture, device migration, perforation of the IVC, embolization, and problems removing the device. In addition, other known long-term IVC filter adverse events include IVC occlusion and lower limb deep vein thrombosis.
In 2010, the FDA issued its first safety communication regarding IVC filters. Safety communications are the FDA’s primary means of alerting professionals to the risks associated with drugs and medical devices. The FDA warned of serious adverse occurrences associated with the IVC filters and expressed its concern that the filters, which are designed to be retrievable, were being left in place too long. The agency recommended that doctors consider removing the filter as soon as the need for protection from a pulmonary embolism is no longer needed.
… if the patient’s transient risk for pulmonary embolism has passed, the risk/benefit profile begins to favor removal of the IVC filter between 29 and 54 days after implantation.”
FDA Safety Communication, May 6, 2014
Part of the problem is that the filters can be very difficult or impossible to remove. A study of 978 patients, almost 20% of the attempts to remove the filters were unsuccessful. In over a seven year period, only 8.5% of the filters attempted to be removed, were successfully removed.
First reported on September 3 and 4, 2015, by NBC Nightly News aired a two-part report on an IVC filter (Recovery Filter System) manufactured by C. R. Bard and approved for market in 2003. In part 1, NBC reported that Bard’s Recovery filter had been associated with 27 deaths and 300 other adverse effects. Bard responded to problems with its filter by hiring a public relations firm and conducting a confidential study, which found that the risk of death, filter fracture and filter movement were all significantly higher for the Recovery filter than its competitors. According to the NBC report, even after it became aware of the serious risks associated with its filter, Bard sold 34,000 Recovery filters before replacing it with a new model, the G2, in 2005.
NBC also reported, part 2 of investigation, focused on a 510(k) application submitted by Bard to gain FDA clearance to sell its Recovery filter. The FDA had rejected an earlier application and Bard turned to regulatory specialist Kay Fuller for help. Fuller, however, raised concerns about the safety of the device. Bard’s response, she says, was to threaten her with removal from their team. She told her boss she would not sign an application unless her concerns were addressed. Nevertheless, a second application that appeared to bear Fuller’s signature was submitted and approved. Fuller says she never signed the application. FDA officials and Bard executives both denied requests to be interviewed for the NBC story.
NBC reported again in December 2015, NBC News published a follow-up report on the Bard’s G2 IVC filter (approved via 510[k] process after the Recovery filter). According to the story, Bard was aware of problems with the G2 shortly after its release, but continued to sell the device and a similar filter, the G2 Express. (The Express was released in 2008.) By 2010 Bard had sold over 160,000 G2 and G2 Express IVC filters. Dr. William T. Kuo is an interventional radiologist and the director of Stanford University’s IVC Filter Clinic. He told NBC News, “The number of complications, the frequency of severe failures makes it obvious that it was never safe to be implanted.” Kuo believes that a Bard IVC filter recall should have been issued.
In another report dated September 2015, a New York woman filed a Bard IVC filter lawsuit after imaging tests revealed that the filter had punctured her inferior vena cava. Struts (pieces or legs) of the device were protruding toward her lumbar spine, but doctors have advised her that surgery to remove the device would be too risky. Request to see a IVC Filter Attorney Near Me for a free evaluation Now