IVC Filter Lawsuit National Settlement Amounts
Legally Reviewed and Edited by: Terry Cochran
In 2015, NBC News reported that there were 39 cases of mass torts against Bard Medical, New Providence, NJ, for the manufacture of retrievable IVC filters that fractured and broke into pieces after it was inserted into the Inferior Vena Cava filter vein in the abdomen. This was of immediate concern for many patients who had opted for this procedure, which was designed to filter the flow of blood clots to the heart and lungs from the inferior vena cava IVC. At this juncture, many IVC Filter lawyers started researching and investigating this increase in the problems associated with this apparatus and an elevated risk of pulmonary embolism. The law offices of Cochran, Kroll, & Associates, P.C. have been on the cutting edge of this issue.
In July 2019, it was reported that over 14,000 malpractice suits have been filed against two primary manufacturers of this device. There have been approximately 5,627 lawsuits filed against Cook Medical, and over 8,482 lawsuits filed against Bard Medical. Of these several have gone to court with settlements for the patient, some have been dismissed, and others have been settled out of court with no record of the exact settlement. It is worthwhile to note, however, that as more lawsuits are brought to termination there will be more settlements.
In March 2018, in Phoenix, Arizona, Bard Medical had to pay damages to a patient, Sherri Booker, who had suffered from the perforation of one of her blood vessels when the Bard IVC Filter fractured and migrated through her bloodstream. She was awarded the amount of 1.6 million dollars in personal damages, and 2 million dollars in punitive damages against the company. Totaling 3.6 million dollars in the United States. The company sold the defective ivc filter manufactured knowing there was a risk of them breaking down.
In 2015, Kevin Phillips filed a suit against Bard claiming that the apparatus broke and punctured his heart. The case was settled only ten days after the filing, and a settlement was granted but not disclosed.
Cook Medical Settlements
Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, which makes the Celect model of the IVC filter lost a case in May of 2018 when a Houston firefighter won a 1.2-million-dollar verdict because the IVC filter dislodged from the vein and damaged his aorta and his small intestine. Some suits against Cook Medical have been dismissed because the patient failed to meet the statute of limitations. A competent IVC Filter lawyer would not have let this happen. The law offices of Cochran, Kroll, & Associates, P.C. are very attentive to the regulations regarding malpractice lawsuits.
Other Lawsuits and Settlements
There are more than two manufacturers of IVC filters that have had litigations concerning this device. ALN Implants, Argon Medical Devices, Cordis Medical, and Boston Scientific are all companies that face future litigation for the IVC Filters. Boston Scientific manufactured the Greenfield model IVC Filter, and in 200, they recalled over 18,000 of the devices because of faulty design. Sometimes it takes several years before problems surface.
In general, when the product liability lawsuits first began the federal courts sometimes ruled in favor of the companies due to the statute of limitations, or because the patient had been advised of the risks involved. However, there are still many IVC FIlter cases pending, and the expectation is that there will be more large class-action lawsuit settlements.
The IVC Filter Lawsuit was designed to assist patients who were immobile, sedentary, or who could not take blood thinners in preventing the movement of blood clots to the lungs and heart. Because of the faulty design and fracturing of these devices, many patients have been injured. At Cochran, Kroll, & Associates, P.C. our attorneys have had a long experience with medical malpractice lawsuits and bellwether trials, and we are constantly studying the effects of the IVC Filter has had on patient treatment. Contact our law firm at 866-MICH-LAW for a free consultation. We never charge a fee unless we win your case.
Disclaimer : The information provided is general and not for legal advice. The blogs are not intended to provide legal counsel and no attorney-client relationship is created nor intended.