IVC Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits
Inferior vena cava (IVC) blood clot filter lawsuits claim manufacturers failed to warn patients of risks like device movement and fracture, embolization and tissue/organ perforation. At least 13,500 IVC filter lawsuits have been filed against various manufacturers and settlements have begun.
IVC Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits
Inferior vena cava (IVC) blood clot filter lawsuits claim manufacturers failed to warn patients of risks like device movement and fracture, embolization and tissue/organ perforation. At least 13,500 IVC filter lawsuits have been filed against various manufacturers and settlements have begun.
Re-designed Heart Medical Device Linked to at Least A Dozen Deaths
Why People File IVC Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits
IVC blood clot filter lawsuits typically claim the adverse events associated with the devices are due to one or more of the following reasons:
• Design and manufacturing defects 
• Failure to warn consumers of known risks
• Breach of implied warranty on the medical device
• Negligence on the part of the manufacturing and/or marketing company
Patients have experienced a number of complications from alleged defects in the design of a variety of retrievable IVC filters. Complications including organ damage or perforation, blood clots (such as from deep-vein thrombosis), pulmonary embolism, device migration, and device fracture have been commonly named in these lawsuits.

Several manufacturers and brands of IVC filters have been subject to individual and class-action lawsuits because of the devices’ failure or complications. According to court documents, each of these companies knew their products were defective but continued to sell them without informing doctors and patients of the risks. As a result, plaintiffs claim that the companies are liable for the harm done to them or their loved ones.

Manufacturers Facing IVC Filter Lawsuits

Currently, nearly 11,600 lawsuits are pending against these IVC filter manufacturers, with the majority filed against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical.

Current IVC Filter Litigation
Thousands of people have partnered with an IVC filter lawyer or law firm to file lawsuits against C. R. Bard, claiming the company’s IVC filters cause injuries. Among other wrongful actions, negligence is the most serious accusation leveled against Bard, with evidence showing that the company likely knew about the risks of its Recovery filter before bringing it to market.

In 2016, plaintiffs with existing filter implants filed a lawsuit seeking class-action certification, which was transferred to MDL 2641. As of March 2019, there are 6,753 actions pending in the C. R. Bard MDL, with bellwether trials still underway.

In 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Cook Gunther Tulip IVC filter for permanent and temporary placement. Cook introduced the Celect vena cava filter in 2008, with FDA clearance following trials in other countries. After 27 actions in 11 districts alleged that Cook’s IVC filters caused injury, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated them into MDL 2570 in the Southern District of Indiana.

When the number of actions continued to grow in 2015, pretrial proceedings moved forward, with the first bellwether cases selected in 2016. As of February 2019, there are 5,313 cases pending in the Cook IVC Filter MDL, alleging defective design, misrepresentation, and failure to warn doctors and patients.

IVC Filter Settlements and Verdicts
Companies whose IVC filters have been the subject of many negligence claims resulted in thousands of lawsuits, with C. R. Bard and Cook accounting for more than 4,000 lawsuits each due to issues with their devices. Below are some notable cases against the companies.
C.R. Bard Lawsuits
Sherr-Una Booker – Arizona: Sherr-Una Booker had her Bard IVC filter implanted in 2007. Two years later, a radiologist noticed fragments of the IVC filter in her heart and spine, indicating a filter fracture. A federal jury in Phoenix awarded Booker $3.6 million after her IVC filter fractured, resulting in open heart surgery to remove the pieces. Booker’s case was the first of many IVC filter liability litigations against Bard. The plaintiff was awarded $2 million in damages, in addition to $1.6 million in punitive damages as a result of the verdict in March 2018.

Lisa Davis – Michigan: Lisa Davis filed a lawsuit against Bard in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. After being implanted with a G2 series filter in 2006, the device fractured and migrated to Davis’ heart in 2008, causing ongoing heart issues. Her lawyer notified the judge in 2013 that a settlement was reached.

Kelly and Chris Vlasvich – Illinois: Kelly and Chris Vlasvich filed a lawsuit against C. R. Bard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kelly Vlasvich’s implanted Bard G2 filter fractured in 2011, damaging her heart and lungs. The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal in 2015 and the case was closed.

Lisa and Mark Hyde – Arizona: As the third bellwether trial, Lisa and Mark Hyde filed a lawsuit against C. R. Bard after Lisa Hyde’s IVC filter implant tilted and fractured. Hyde’s claim to receive compensation for future arrhythmia damages was tossed due to a law in Wisconsin, where Hyde’s IVC filter was implanted. Judge Campbell of the U.S. District Court of Arizona ruled that the law states that “future injuries and medical care must be established by a medical probability, not a mere possibility.” Ultimately, the jury found for Bard in October 2018.
Cook Medical Lawsuits
Elizabeth Hill – Florida: The plaintiff, Elizabeth Hill, had the Cook Celect IVC filter implanted in 2010, later suffering from varying complications of pain and fatigue. She alleged the blood clot filter had to be surgically removed three years later after it was found to have perforated her IVC and the duodenum of her small intestine. Ultimately, the jury found her evidence to be thin and the case resulted in a defense verdict in November 2017. This was the first bellwether case against Cook.

Arthur Gage – Indiana: In this second bellwether action, this case was ultimately dismissed after Judge Young ruled the claim to be untimely. Gage’s lawsuit was the only bellwether trial against the Günther Tulip filter. Cook Medical was vocal about the decision, stating they would vigorously continue to defend their products in future trials.
Greenfield Filter Lawsuit
The Family of Cinthia K. Ratliff – Ohio: Boston Scientific, another company that manufactures IVC filters, was hit with a wrongful death lawsuit in 2015 after its Greenfield vena cava filter allegedly caused severe injuries that led to the death of Ratliff. According to the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, design defects caused the device to fail and perforate Ratliff’s vena cava, resulting in the severe internal bleeding from which she died in 2013. The autopsy report confirmed the allegation, listing the cause of death as “perforation of inferior vena cava by greenfield filter with retroperitoneal hemorrhage.” The case was dismissed in March 2017 when a settlement agreement was reached.
SOURCES
• 1 Andreoli JM, Thornburg BG, Hickey RM. Inferior Vena Cava Filter–Related Thrombus/Deep Vein Thrombosis: Data and Management. Seminars in Interventional Radiology. 2016;33(02):101-104. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1581087 PMID: 27247478

• 2 Boston Scientific Greenfield Vena Cava Filter Case Settles in Ohio. HarrisMartin Publishing. March 30, 2017

• 3 Davis V. C.R. Bard, Inc. Case No. 11-12556. December 6, 2012.

• 4 Durack JC, et al. Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2012. 35(2):299-308. doi: 10.1007/s00270-011-0151-9

• 5 Gosk S, Sandler T. Why Did Firm Keep Selling Problem Blood-Clot Filters? NBC News. December 31, 2015.

• 6 Gosk S, Naggiar S, Sandler T. Did Forged Signature Clear Way for Dangerous Blood-Clot Filter? NBC News. September 4, 2015.

• 7 U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation


• 9 U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Case Management Order No. 16. August 25, 2016.

• 10 U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Case Management Order No. 20. December 22, 2016.

• 11 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division. Complaint. January 12, 2015.

• 12 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Jury Demand. October 31, 2013.

• 13 U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Transfer Order. August 17, 2015.

• 14 U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Transfer Order.
Re-designed Heart Medical Device Linked to at Least A Dozen Deaths
Why People File IVC Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits
IVC blood clot filter lawsuits typically claim the adverse events associated with the devices are due to one or more of the following reasons:
• Design and manufacturing defects 
• Failure to warn consumers of known risks
• Breach of implied warranty on the medical device
• Negligence on the part of the manufacturing and/or marketing company
Patients have experienced a number of complications from alleged defects in the design of a variety of retrievable IVC filters. Complications including organ damage or perforation, blood clots (such as from deep-vein thrombosis), pulmonary embolism, device migration, and device fracture have been commonly named in these lawsuits.

Several manufacturers and brands of IVC filters have been subject to individual and class-action lawsuits because of the devices’ failure or complications. According to court documents, each of these companies knew their products were defective but continued to sell them without informing doctors and patients of the risks. As a result, plaintiffs claim that the companies are liable for the harm done to them or their loved ones.

Manufacturers Facing IVC Filter Lawsuits

Currently, nearly 11,600 lawsuits are pending against these IVC filter manufacturers, with the majority filed against C.R. Bard and Cook Medical.

Current IVC Filter Litigation
Thousands of people have partnered with an IVC filter lawyer or law firm to file lawsuits against C. R. Bard, claiming the company’s IVC filters cause injuries. Among other wrongful actions, negligence is the most serious accusation leveled against Bard, with evidence showing that the company likely knew about the risks of its Recovery filter before bringing it to market.

In 2016, plaintiffs with existing filter implants filed a lawsuit seeking class-action certification, which was transferred to MDL 2641. As of March 2019, there are 6,753 actions pending in the C. R. Bard MDL, with bellwether trials still underway.

In 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Cook Gunther Tulip IVC filter for permanent and temporary placement. Cook introduced the Celect vena cava filter in 2008, with FDA clearance following trials in other countries. After 27 actions in 11 districts alleged that Cook’s IVC filters caused injury, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated them into MDL 2570 in the Southern District of Indiana.

When the number of actions continued to grow in 2015, pretrial proceedings moved forward, with the first bellwether cases selected in 2016. As of February 2019, there are 5,313 cases pending in the Cook IVC Filter MDL, alleging defective design, misrepresentation, and failure to warn doctors and patients.

IVC Filter Settlements and Verdicts
Companies whose IVC filters have been the subject of many negligence claims resulted in thousands of lawsuits, with C. R. Bard and Cook accounting for more than 4,000 lawsuits each due to issues with their devices. Below are some notable cases against the companies.
C.R. Bard Lawsuits
Sherr-Una Booker – Arizona: Sherr-Una Booker had her Bard IVC filter implanted in 2007. Two years later, a radiologist noticed fragments of the IVC filter in her heart and spine, indicating a filter fracture. A federal jury in Phoenix awarded Booker $3.6 million after her IVC filter fractured, resulting in open heart surgery to remove the pieces. Booker’s case was the first of many IVC filter liability litigations against Bard. The plaintiff was awarded $2 million in damages, in addition to $1.6 million in punitive damages as a result of the verdict in March 2018.

Lisa Davis – Michigan: Lisa Davis filed a lawsuit against Bard in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. After being implanted with a G2 series filter in 2006, the device fractured and migrated to Davis’ heart in 2008, causing ongoing heart issues. Her lawyer notified the judge in 2013 that a settlement was reached.

Kelly and Chris Vlasvich – Illinois: Kelly and Chris Vlasvich filed a lawsuit against C. R. Bard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kelly Vlasvich’s implanted Bard G2 filter fractured in 2011, damaging her heart and lungs. The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal in 2015 and the case was closed.

Lisa and Mark Hyde – Arizona: As the third bellwether trial, Lisa and Mark Hyde filed a lawsuit against C. R. Bard after Lisa Hyde’s IVC filter implant tilted and fractured. Hyde’s claim to receive compensation for future arrhythmia damages was tossed due to a law in Wisconsin, where Hyde’s IVC filter was implanted. Judge Campbell of the U.S. District Court of Arizona ruled that the law states that “future injuries and medical care must be established by a medical probability, not a mere possibility.” Ultimately, the jury found for Bard in October 2018.
Cook Medical Lawsuits
Elizabeth Hill – Florida: The plaintiff, Elizabeth Hill, had the Cook Celect IVC filter implanted in 2010, later suffering from varying complications of pain and fatigue. She alleged the blood clot filter had to be surgically removed three years later after it was found to have perforated her IVC and the duodenum of her small intestine. Ultimately, the jury found her evidence to be thin and the case resulted in a defense verdict in November 2017. This was the first bellwether case against Cook.

Arthur Gage – Indiana: In this second bellwether action, this case was ultimately dismissed after Judge Young ruled the claim to be untimely. Gage’s lawsuit was the only bellwether trial against the Günther Tulip filter. Cook Medical was vocal about the decision, stating they would vigorously continue to defend their products in future trials.
Greenfield Filter Lawsuit
The Family of Cinthia K. Ratliff – Ohio: Boston Scientific, another company that manufactures IVC filters, was hit with a wrongful death lawsuit in 2015 after its Greenfield vena cava filter allegedly caused severe injuries that led to the death of Ratliff. According to the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, design defects caused the device to fail and perforate Ratliff’s vena cava, resulting in the severe internal bleeding from which she died in 2013. The autopsy report confirmed the allegation, listing the cause of death as “perforation of inferior vena cava by greenfield filter with retroperitoneal hemorrhage.” The case was dismissed in March 2017 when a settlement agreement was reached.
SOURCES
• 1 Andreoli JM, Thornburg BG, Hickey RM. Inferior Vena Cava Filter–Related Thrombus/Deep Vein Thrombosis: Data and Management. Seminars in Interventional Radiology. 2016;33(02):101-104. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1581087 PMID: 27247478

• 2 Boston Scientific Greenfield Vena Cava Filter Case Settles in Ohio. HarrisMartin Publishing. March 30, 2017

• 3 Davis V. C.R. Bard, Inc. Case No. 11-12556. December 6, 2012.

• 4 Durack JC, et al. Perforation of the IVC: rule rather than exception after longer indwelling times for the Günther Tulip and Celect retrievable filters. Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. 2012. 35(2):299-308. doi: 10.1007/s00270-011-0151-9

• 5 Gosk S, Sandler T. Why Did Firm Keep Selling Problem Blood-Clot Filters? NBC News. December 31, 2015.

• 6 Gosk S, Naggiar S, Sandler T. Did Forged Signature Clear Way for Dangerous Blood-Clot Filter? NBC News. September 4, 2015.

• 7 U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation


• 9 U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Case Management Order No. 16. August 25, 2016.

• 10 U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Case Management Order No. 20. December 22, 2016.

• 11 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division. Complaint. January 12, 2015.

• 12 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Jury Demand. October 31, 2013.

• 13 U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Transfer Order. August 17, 2015.

• 14 U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Transfer Order.
Learn More About Our Innovative Finance Solutions 
If you're an attorney or an investor and would like to know more about our litigation funding strategies, our team is ready to assist you.
Learn More About Our Innovative Finance Solutions 
If you're an attorney or an investor and would like to know more about our litigation funding strategies, our team is ready to assist you.
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Customer Service (888) 460-TORT
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Login 
Customer Service (888) 460-TORT
IMPORTANT MESSAGE: www.TortFund.com (the “Site”) is a website owned and operated by Tort Fund, LLC. (“Tort Fund”). By accessing this Site and any pages on this Site, you agree to be bound by its Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, as may be amended from time to time without notice or liability. Investment opportunities posted on the Site are indirect investments in legal claims offered through single purpose pooled investment funds managed by Tort Fund LLC. Tort Fund is not an investment advisor, broker-dealer or crowdfunding portal and does not engage in any activities requiring any such registration. The securities offerings posted on the Site are available to Accredited Investors only.
 
All accredited investors using the Site must acknowledge the speculative nature of these investments and accept the high risks associated with investing in legal claims including but not limited to concentration risk, lack of control over the prosecution of underlying claims and claimant's inability to assert and collect on their claims. Investment opportunities posted on this Site are “private placements” of securities that are not publicly traded, are subject to holding period requirements, and are intended for investors who do not need a liquid investment. The plaintiff may not prevail in their lawsuit, resulting in a loss of invested capital for investors. Investors must be able to afford the loss of their entire investment without a change to their lifestyle. The securities are offered pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are not required to comply with specific disclosure requirements that apply to registration under the Securities Act. Neither the US Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state regulator or other regulatory body has passed upon the merits of or given its approval to the securities, the terms of the offerings, or the accuracy or completeness of any offering materials. Neither Tort Fund nor any of its directors, officers, employees, representatives, affiliates or agents shall have any liability whatsoever arising, for any error or incompleteness of fact or opinion in, or lack of care in the preparation or publication, of the materials and communication herein or the or that the valuation of any securities offering is appropriate. Tort Fund does not give investment advice, provide analysis or recommendations regarding any offering posted on the Site. Prior results are not indicative of future performance; actual results may vary materially. The Site may contain “forward looking statements” which are not guaranteed. All investors should make their own determination of whether or not to make any investment, based on their own independent evaluation and analysis. You are strongly advised to consult your legal, tax and financial advisors before investing. The securities offered on this Site can only be marketed in jurisdictions where public solicitation of offerings are permitted; it is solely your responsibility to comply with the laws and regulations of your country of residence.

Learn more about investing in private placements from the SEC, FINRA or Tort Fund’s specific financing model.

© 2019 Tort Fund, Inc. All rights reserved.