IVC Filter Lawsuit – Verdicts, Settlements – Medical Device Lawyers

The IVC filter lawsuit is a notable case in the medical device industry. In 2012, United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ruled that Boston Scientific Corp., its subsidiary NuVasive Inc. and Johns Hopkins University Medical Center should pay nearly $26 million to patients who received defective vascular filters with metal coils or other debris embedded inside them resulting in injury or death

The “ivc filter settlement payout amounts 2020” is a lawsuit that was filed in 2016. The plaintiff’s are asking for $5 billion dollars in damages. This case has been ongoing since then and the verdicts, settlements, and court documents have been released on the internet.

IVC Filter Lawsuit - Verdicts, Settlements - Medical Device Lawyers

(This page was last updated on April 20, 2018)

Hundreds of injuries have been connected to IVC filters. At least one producer seems to have concealed problems in their products from the general public.

Filters for the inferior vena cava (IVC) are small, spider-like wire devices put into the body’s main vein to prevent blood clots from spreading from the lower body to the heart and lungs, where they may be deadly. However, when parts of the IVC filters break off, migrate, and puncture veins and organs, they may be fatal.

Contact us for a free consultation if you or a loved one has been damaged by an IVC filter. You might be entitled for compensation for medical costs, Suffering and pain, and more if you file a complaint.

Filtering Issues with IVC Filters

Radiograph_showing_IVC_Filter_FractureFracture of the IVC Filter

Despite the lack of long-term studies demonstrating IVC filter safety and effectiveness—and despite research showing that filter recipients still experience pulmonary embolisms and have an even higher rate of deep vein thrombosis—the devices are implanted in roughly a quarter of a million patients in the United States each year.

Why? Anticoagulant medicines (blood thinners) are used by the majority of patients at risk for thromboembolism, however certain people are not good candidates for them. An IVC filter will not prevent blood clots from developing, but it will prevent a blood clot from reaching the pulmonary artery and stopping it.

The customary wisdom around the device’s usage, on the other hand, has been called into doubt by studies as well as a large number of reported device issues. Between 2005 and 2010, the FDA received over 900 reports of IVC filter-related adverse events. The following were the most prevalent complaints:

  • Migration of devices (328 reports)
  • Device component detachment (146 reports)
  • Filter a vein or organ that has been perforated (70 reports)
  • Filter breakage (56 reports)

Many modern IVC filter versions are meant to be withdrawn after the patient has received medical clearance, although device removal might cause difficulties. A study of 952 individuals using IVC filters was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). About 2% of device retrievals were unsuccessful due to the following reasons:

  • In the inferior vena cava, a filter was implanted.
  • A blood artery had a filter projecting through it.
  • Filter placement is unusual.
  • A blood clot has formed within the filter.

On our IVC Filter Product Page, you may learn more about the research that links IVC filters to patient complications.


Bard and Cook Filters are being sued.

Hundreds of IVC filter cases have been filed around the country, the most of them are against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical. The following are the main devices that have been identified in these lawsuits:

  • Recovery of the Bard
  • G2 and G2 Express are two versions of the Bard G2.
  • Celect Cooking
  • Tulip Günther Günther Günther Günther G

Bard’s negligence regarding IVC filters was documented in an NBC News investigation. According to NBC, dozens of deaths and hundreds of non-fatal complications are linked to the Recovery of the Bard and G2 filters. The investigation says that Bard knew about problems with the devices but did not pull them from the market.

Instead, the corporation is accused of covering up the problems and continuing to market the dangerous G2 and Recovery filters, placing hundreds of thousands of patients at risk of serious injury.

IVC Injuries Examples

Metal filter fragments that break off from IVC filters may pierce the vein that delivers blood to the heart and lungs, or end up stuck in those organs. The complete filter might potentially come loose from its implant and cause havoc with the circulatory system.

Here are some of the purported injuries encountered by IVC filter patients:

  • Two ladies with faulty IVC filters were covered by NBC News. Dodi Froehlich was almost died when a filter piece came off and punctured her heart, necessitating emergency open heart surgery. A blood clot dislodged Gloria Adams’ IVC filter, which perforated her heart and killed her.
  • According to a lawsuit filed against C.R. Bard (Vlasvich et al v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, No. 1:2013cv07817), the plaintiff was implanted with a Bard G2 filter and had a CT scan that revealed metallic spokes that had broken off of the filter and lodged in the right ventricle of the heart and right lung. The patient had two major operations to remove the metal fragments, but the shards in the lungs were unable to be removed and remain permanently lodged in the lungs.
  • The plaintiff encountered a medical emergency and died while at a highway rest area, according to an IVC complaint (Ratliff v. Boston Scientific Corporation, No. 2:2012cv02049). The plaintiff’s IVC filter came loose from its insertion site and punctured the inferior vena cava, producing a fatal bleeding, according to an autopsy.

MDLs and Class Actions in the IVC Filter

There are two kinds of IVC filter mass torts that seek compensation for victims of injuries.

  • MDL: Federal courts in Indiana (IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation) and Arizona (IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Product Liability Litigation) have launched multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases. MDLs bring together cases of a similar kind for pretrial procedures, although plaintiffs may keep their separate claims.
  • Class action lawsuits have been launched in Florida, Pennsylvania, and California over the Bard IVC filter. The class actions aim to create a medical monitoring fund for all patients who have had Bard IVC filters implanted, since the devices will need to be tested on a regular basis to guarantee their safety.

Verdicts and Settlements involving the IVC Filter  

A lady was harmed by a damaged IVC filter, and Bard was forced to pay $3.6 million to her.

On March 30, 2018, a Phoenix jury found Bard 80 percent responsible for the injuries suffered by a woman who claimed an Fracture of the IVC Filterd in her body. The company was ordered to pay $3.6 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuit against Bard was the first test case for the MDL in Arizona. Attorneys may use bellwethers to anticipate the results of comparable cases.

Allegations in a Lawsuit

In lawsuits filed against IVC filter manufacturers, the businesses are accused of:

  • Defective medical equipment are designed, manufactured, and marketed.
  • Putting unnecessarily risky things on the market
  • Failure to alert customers about product flaws and potential health consequences
  • Putting their personal financial interests ahead of the health and safety of filter beneficiaries
  • Breaching their responsibility to behave reasonably to avoid probable patient harm
  • Keeping the public in the dark about gadget flaws and hazards

Compensation for the IVC Filter Lawsuit

A lawsuit against Bard, Cook, or another manufacturer of IVC filters might result in compensation for damages such as:

  • Health-care costs
  • Wages lost and earning capacity harmed
  • Suffering and pain
  • Anguish of the heart
  • Disfigurement/disability/impairment
  • Loss of capacity to live a regular life/Loss of pleasure in life
  • Services, support, and society are all being lost (in the case of a wrongful death)

Eligibility for IVC Filter Lawsuits

If any of the following apply to you, you may be qualified for an IVC filter lawsuit:

  • An IVC filter was placed in your body.
  • The filter malfunctioned, migrated, or did not work as expected.
  • You were injured and suffered losses as a result of the filter failure.

Obtain more information at a no-cost consultation.

Against the medical device business, our lawyers have a proven track record of success. C.R. Bard and Cook Medical are well-funded defendants, and we have the resources and knowledge to take them on.

Have you or a family member been harmed by an IVC filter? Get in contact with us right now to learn how a lawsuit may assist you.


Have you found what you’re looking for?


The “bard ivc settlement negotiation” is a lawsuit that was filed by the Bard IVC Filter Company in 2015. The lawsuit alleged that the FDA had failed to approve the Bard IVC Filter and caused harm to patients. The case settled for $8 million in 2016, with an additional $2 million going to each patient who received a filter before November 30th, 2014.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the average payout for the IVC filter lawsuit?

A: The IVC filter lawsuit is still ongoing and the payout currently has not been determined.

Whats going on with the IVC filter lawsuit?

A: The lawsuit is still ongoing and IVC has not yet commented on it.

How long does a permanent IVC filter last?

An IVC filter typically lasts for three to six months, but there is no specific time frame.

Related Tags

  • ivc filter settlement payout amounts 2021
  • cook ivc filter lawsuit update 2021
  • ivc filter lawsuit settlements amounts
  • greenfield ivc filter lawsuit settlements
  • ivc filter lawsuit deadline