the most important things to know about the new IVC filter Demand
Filters IVC blood clots can cause serious and fatal risks of health. But it is a demand for blood clot filter IVC right answer? We are diving deeper into the issue today.
What IVC filters?
IVC filters are recoverable devices involved in the veins of patients who normally would not be able to take anticoagulants (ie, blood thinners). The inferior vena cava filter (IVC) prevents blood clots move to the lungs.
The device works by capturing clots as they travel through the bloodstream. Then clots dissipate over time. The inferior vena cava filter is removed from the body when the patient to have reduced their risk of problems related to blood clots is observed.
Why they are potentially dangerous?
Unfortunately, the FDA has received hundreds of reports about problems related retrievable filters. – Including organs, blood vessels drilled drilled, and problems related to filter migration to different parts of the body
The FDA began noticing problems IVC filter around 2010, when they warned the public of the possible risks of fracture filters or migrate through the body or puncturing organs.
As a result, the FDA recommended that the devices be removed as soon as the risk of a blood clot patient had died down.
In 2014, the FDA updated its recommendations, once again, indicating that the devices must be removed between the 29th and 54th after implantation.
Unfortunately, the FDA warnings came too late now, users of IVC filters throughout the United States have begun filing lawsuits. These lawsuits allege that the filters caused some kind of injury or death.
Who is the target of demand?
IVC filter demands are directed to two manufacturers of medical products, including C. R. Bard and Cook Medical. Together, these companies made five different types of IVC filters that have been linked to health problems . These five products include:
The cook Gunther Tulip Filter
The cook Celect Filter
-The Bard Recovery filter
-The Bard G2 filter
-The express Bard G2 filter
the lawsuits allege all similar problems and that manufacturers were negligent in selling these devices. Manufacturers allegedly failed to warn consumers of the problems and not to protect consumers against manufacturing defects. They also broke implied warranty and negligence misrepresented their products.
The first lawsuits against Bard were filed in state courts of California and Pennsylvania in 2012.
In October 2014, the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL – the body that the class-action status gives certain cases). consolidated lawsuits against the cook had 11 districts CDM in Southern Indiana
To date, the number of lawsuits filed against Cook has grown to more than 100.
in February 2015, CR Bard settled against one named plaintiff Kevin Phillips just 10 days after starting the test. Philips received an IVC filter implantation later broke into her body. One of the small metal legs traveled to filter through your blood to your heart torrent, creating a hole. The tear in his heart forced him to undergo open-heart surgery, followed by a long and painful process of recovery.
Bard demands have also reached the class-action status: US Judicial Panel on MDL decided to consolidate all claims against Bard to the District Court of Arizona in the US in August 2015. To date, more than 50 lawsuits are part of the CDM [
Meanwhile, a number of other demands are currently making their way through the judicial system in other parts of the country.
damage by IVC filters
Since 2010, the FDA received reports of complications related to IVC filters. It is expected that the number of complications has increased dramatically since then. However, the initial report of 2010 included 900 different cases throughout the United States including:
-70 holes filter
-328 migrations devices
-56 fractures filter
A study shows that more than IVC filters can not be removed safely say
in 2013, researchers published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which sought to determine the risks associated with IVC filters.
In that study, researchers analyzed 680 successful implementations of IVC filter. Of these 680 patients, doctors were only able to successfully remove 58 IVC filters. Doctors performed 13 unsuccessful attempts at removal, of which 11 occurred in patients who had their IVC filters for more than 85 days.
3 of these patients could not have their filters removed by filters protruded through a blood vessel.
You can read the full study here .
Bard may have known about the risks
Many of the claims against Bard allege that the company knew about the risks of IVC filters but still decided to sell the filters to the market.
This information was revealed in the report now infamous Lehmann. In 2004, Dr. John Bard Lehmann hired an independent consultant to examine fracturing and migration related to the new version of its inferior vena cava filter problems. Lehmann completed its report in December 2004 and found that the Bard IVC filter experienced a higher rate of complications than its competitors.
You can read the full report Lehmann here .
Is Bard forge a signature for the FDA application?
Another serious accusation against Bard is that they have forged a signature on your application to the FDA. That information was revealed in an investigation of NBC News .
NBC News says the company hired a specialist regulator called Kay Fuller in 2002. Bard wanted Fuller to help bring IVC filter company in the market. Fuller, however, grew concerned about the safety of the device and refused to help gain market clearance for the device Bard.
However, the name and signature of Fuller appear in an application for the filter below the FDA vena cava. This application was subsequently used to approve Bard IVC filter. Fuller later told NBC that she did not sign the form and that the signature was used in the application without your knowledge.
should join a lawsuit IVC Filter Class Action?
If you or a loved one have suffered medical complications as a result of inferior vena cava filter, then you may be eligible for significant compensation under US law.
As more and more details of this case arise, lawyers are beginning to realize that the applicants may be eligible for huge compensation -. Especially if it was found that Bard forged signatures on applications FDA
Ultimately, the best course of action is to schedule a free consultation with an attorney. Many personal injury attorneys offer free consultations where you can discuss the details of your case before closing a contract or pay anything. Many attorneys will also work on a contingency basis, where no charges will be made in advance, but will have a cut of the concession, once it has reached a settlement or verdict.
If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a complication IVC filter, then there is no better time than now to defend their rights.
dr grant stevens lawsuits | dr mel ortega lawsuits filed | best test to localize vena cava filters |