Compare the best IVC Filter lawyers near Spartanburg, SC today. Use our free directory to instantly connect with verified IVC Filter attorneys.
South Carolina IVC Filter Lawyers. Call Now: (888) 510-9251. Our South Carolina IVC filter lawyers represent victims of defective blood clot filters. The South Carolina IVC filter lawsuits filed by our attorneys demand maximum financial compensation for injury and corrective surgery due to a defective IVC filter.
An IVC filter attorney at our North Carolina and South Carolina firm can help you determine whether some of these claims may apply to your situation. In North Carolina, a plaintiff may prevail against a product manufacturer on a claim based on inadequate design if the plaintiff proves that the manufacturer acted unreasonably in designing the ...
Aug 22, 2016 · C.R. Bard has already settled IVC filter cases. Call Miller & Zois at 800-553-8082 or get a free, no-obligation online case review if you believe you have been harmed by an IVC filter. Dig deeper into the science and history of these cases; IVC Filter Verdicts. IVC filters are not the preferred or the first method of treatment.
Based on the IVC filter verdicts and the history of mass tort litigation, settlements may average between $100,000 and $500,000 for significant injury cases but there will certainly be cases that settle higher and lower than that payout range.
Lawsuits filed in federal court allege that defects in the design of IVC filters manufactured by Bard and Cook make them more likely fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the inferior vena cava. In some cases, when the devices break, pieces can travel through the body, damaging the heart, lungs and other organs.
The use of IVC filters has gone down over the last 10+ years. This may be in response to complaints about complications and the 2010 recommendation from the FDA that set removal guidelines at roughly between one and two months for most patients.Dec 27, 2019
An IVC filter is a small metal device that traps large clot fragments and prevents them from traveling through the vena cava vein to the heart and lungs, where they could cause severe complications such as pain, difficulty breathing, shortness of breath or even death.
Retrievable IVC filter should be removed according to manufacturer and clinical guidelines and assessment. These devices are placed and removed by an IR physician using precision image guidance. The removal procedure is done, usually on an outpatient basis, under light sedation. The process is similar to insertion.
You can still have a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) while you have an IVC filter, but it's important to tell the healthcare provider at the radiology facility each time to be safe.Jan 21, 2021
Without the IVC filter in place, a blood clot traveling to the lung could cause a blockage of the pulmonary artery. This is known as a pulmonary embolism (PE), a life-threatening condition.
In many cases, IVC filters left in place too long, over several months to several years, cannot be safely removed using standard methods because they have scarred into the walls of the vein. “Unfortunately, this complication rate can be really high,” Dr. Kuo told Drugwatch.
A retrievable IVC filter may be removed when the risk of a blood clot traveling to the lungs has passed or if you can take blood thinners. Your doctor may recommend removing the filter when it's no longer needed. IVC retrieval helps reduce the risks of having an IVC filter in your body.
Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters can cause symptoms ranging from redness and fever to deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and infection....ThrombosisLeg pain.Swelling of the legs.Cramping or soreness in the calf or elsewhere in the leg.The leg might feel warm to touch.Discolored or red skin on the leg.Dec 27, 2019
About the Procedure IVC Filter placement and removal is a minimally invasive surgery. The implantation of the IVC filter involves a local anesthetic and numbing medication injected in your skin in the area that the IVC filter will be inserted, preventing discomfort during the surgery.
For permanent filters, research has shown that breakthrough PE—despite the IVC filter—occurred in 0% to 6.2% of cases. One randomized controlled trial 10 showed that PE occurred in 15.1% of high-risk patients who did not receive IVC filters.
For a long time, no vena cava filter lawsuits so far have made it through trial with a successful jury verdict. Yet many plaintiffs' attorneys rema...
The settlement value of an IVC filter lawsuit is going to depend on the severity of the victim's injuries. If there is a global settlement, there w...
The FDA has issued a number of recalls and warnings on IVC filters. Two of the recalls were Class I recalls. Class I means there is a reasonable pr...
The easiest path to join one of the MDL class actions involving the IVC filters is to hire a lawyer who is handling these cases. That attorney will...
The filter was first manufactured in 1979 and has been inserted into over 260,000 patients. Lawsuits are being filed around the country amid reports that too many of these filters cause more harm than good. They are allegedly prone to fracture, tilt, migrate, perforate the IVC walls, and break apart.
A perforation is when a part of a filter migrates through the wall of the IVC and leaves the IVC. The morbidity and mortality associated with surgical removal of Bard, Cook Medical, Rex Medical, and Greenfield filters are high.
These small, cage-like devices are designed to filter or "catch" blood clots that travel from the lower portions of the body to the heart and lungs. Blood clots in the legs or pelvis can occasionally travel to the lungs, where they could cause a pulmonary embolism (PE) or blockage.
However, new filters that have the option to be removed later on or remain permanent have developed. These retrievable filters should be removed as soon as possible after the risk of a clot traveling to the lungs has passed.
The big news in these IVC filter cases came in April 2018 when the plaintiff scored their first big win. An Arizona jury awarded a Georgia woman $3.6 million, including $2 million in punitive damages. In November 2019, a Pennsylvania jury awarded $34 million to a Georgia woman who was injured by a Rex Medical Option IVC filter.
These devices essentially resemble the ribs of an umbrella without the cloth stretched between them. The first IVC filter was the Mobin-Udin filter developed in 1967.
These suits claim these filters have a greater risk of perforation, penetration, tilting, fracture, and migration. The victims bringing these lawsuits would concede that these risks are present in all IVC filters. But the key is whether Cook and Cordis were worse.
If you were injured from a Cook or Cordis IVC filter, reach out to our IVC filter lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or connect with us online. The call or online case review is free.
The first IVC filter was the Mobin-Udin filter developed in 1967 . It was replaced by the Greenfield filter in 1973. These first-generation filters required surgical access to the femoral vein for placement and the threshold for their implantation was high.
The Bard IVC MDL class action began in August 2015 with 22 lawsuits. By the time the MDL closed on May 31, 2019, 8,000 cases had been filed. How did we get here?
IVC filters have been linked to an increased risk of fracture which can cause serious injury or death. Our law firm is focused on Cordis and Cook IVC filter cases.
IVC filters prevent blood clots from traveling to the lungs, heart, and brain in patients who cannot take blood-thinning drugs. These small, cage-like devices are inserted into the vena cava, the body’s largest vein, which carries blood from the lower body to the heart.
Trials are expected to start in February 2017.
Financial crimes – Securities and investment fraud, including Ponzi schemes, are one of the most common reasons people seek collective action. Famous examples include Bernie Madoff and the Wells Fargo account fraud scandals.
It is always a good idea to research your lawyer prior to hiring. Every state has a disciplinary organization that monitors attorneys, their licenses, and consumer complaints. By researching lawyer discipline you can:
There are now over 7,00 IVC Filter lawsuits pending against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical in two federal courts in Arizona and Illinois. Hundreds of additional lawsuits are also pending against B. Braun, Rex Medical, Argon Medical, and other manufacturers.
In March 2013, JAMA published an editorial titled “How could a medical device be so well accepted without any evidence of efficacy?” Since then, several studies have confirmed that IVC filters have serious risks and questionable benefits: 1 September 2016 — Study finds no survival benefit for trauma patients implanted with IVC filters, and only 8% were retrieved within the 3.8-year follow-up. 2 November 2015 — Study finds that trauma patients who are implanted with an IVC filter are no more likely to survive, but 83% more likely to develop blood clots in the legs ( deep vein thrombosis ). 3 August 2015 — Study links Cook Medical’s Celect IVC filter with a 43% rate of vena cava perforation, compared to a 0% rate for the Option filter made by Rex Medical (Argon Medical). 4 April 2015 — Study finds that patients at risk of a blood clots might not benefit if they are implanted with a retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter instead of using a blood-thinning medication.
In May 2021, a jury in Oregon awarded $926,000 to a man who filed a lawsuit after his Bard Eclipse IVC Filter punctured his vein and intestines, causing major internal bleeding that required emergency surgery. Click here to read more.
April 2018 — C.R. Bard has been ordered to pay $3.6 million to a woman who needed open-heart surgery when her IVC Filter tilted, migrated, fractured, and broken pieces punctured through her veins and traveled to her heart. Click here to read more.
In February 2015, C.R. Bard reached a settlement with a man who underwent emergency surgery to remove a Recovery filter. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed publicly. Our lawyers are pursuing lawsuit settlements and cash payouts for people who were injured by IVC filters.
The inferior vena cava is the largest vein in the body, but its walls are very thin. The sharp needle-like legs of an IVC filter can perforate the vena cava and cause internal bleeding. The filter may also be impossible to remove when it is stuck in the blood vessel.
Temporary vena cava filters were never studied for permanent implantation. When they fracture, the needle-like wire legs break off and travel in the bloodstream (called “embolization”) until they get stuck in the heart, lungs, or other blood vessels. This can cause severe organ damage. For example, doctors at Baylor University published a case report of a young woman who experienced severe complications when a Bard G2 IVC filter fractured after it was was left in her body for more than 6 years.