IVC Filter Lawsuits

An IVC filter is a medical device that is implanted in the inferior vena cava (IVC), a large vein that carries blood from the lower body to the heart. The filter is designed to trap blood clots that form in the deep veins in the legs, which can travel to the heart and lungs and result in a serious medical condition known as a pulmonary embolism.

Unfortunately, many IVC filters are now the subject of hundreds of lawsuits, claiming the device broke or otherwise malfunctioned. Wisner Baum has represented thousands of clients in defective medical device and pharmaceutical cases, and our Los Angeles IVC filter lawsuit attorneys are currently accepting cases from individuals and families who have been injured by – or are facing the threat of – serious harm from an IVC filter.

How Does an IVC Filter Work?

Most of us are familiar with the basics of the circulatory system: The heart pumps blood to the lungs, where it picks up oxygen and then returns to the heart. From there, the oxygen-rich blood is pumped through arteries to the cells in the body. The blood, now with much less oxygen, returns to the heart through the veins and is then pumped back to the lungs, where it releases carbon dioxide and picks up new oxygen.

Blood clots in deep veins in the legs, known as deep vein thrombosis (DVT), can interrupt this process. These clots can break loose and may travel up through the inferior vena cava back to the heart and then to the lungs, where they get stuck and block the blood flow. This potentially fatal condition is known as a pulmonary embolism. The IVC filter is designed to catch blood clots before they can travel to the lungs and cause a PE. These filters are primarily used for patients who have repeated DVT despite the use of blood thinners (usually the first treatment), or in those who cannot take blood thinners for medical reasons.

To place an IVC filter, doctors insert a catheter—a thin tube—into a large vein in the neck or groin. The catheter is advanced through the vein to the inferior vena cava. The filter is then fed through the catheter to the IVC and released. The legs or struts of the device then expand and attach to the walls of the vein. IVC filters can either be classified as permanent or retrievable.

Understanding IVC Filter Removal Risks

IVC filters can be difficult or dangerous to remove, particularly if left implanted beyond FDA-recommended timelines. The FDA recommends removal as soon as the risk of pulmonary embolism no longer exists—generally between 29 and 54 days after implantation—to reduce long-term risks. However, removal attempts fail in approximately 20% of cases due to filter embedment, fracture, or perforation.

IVC Filter Complications

There are numerous problems associated with these filters, and each IVC filter lawsuit involves a variation on one of several adverse effects. Recent reports highlight an increased incidence and severity of these problems, particularly with long-term implantations and retrievable filters left in place beyond recommended timelines.

Recent findings and adverse event statistics include:

• Filter fracture rates can reach 14-16% over several years, with fractured fragments often migrating and lodging in critical organs such as the heart and lungs, increasing mortality risks. (Up to 71% of embolized fragments lodge in the heart.)
• Device retrieval remains challenging, with removal attempts failing in about 20% of cases due to embedment in the vein wall, fracture, or perforation of surrounding tissues. However, timely removal—typically within one year of implantation—achieves success rates exceeding 90%.
• Complication rates associated with IVC filters vary but can be as high as 10.8% overall, including recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), IVC thrombotic occlusion, filter migration, and penetration.
• Long-term dwelling of filters correlates strongly with increasing risks of vena cava thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, and perforation of nearby organs such as the heart, lungs, pancreas, kidneys, and abdominal vessels.
• Filter retrieval procedures themselves carry risks, with embolization during removal occurring in approximately 4.7% of cases involving advanced retrieval techniques.
• Despite FDA recommendations to remove retrievable filters ideally between 29 and 54 days after implantation to minimize risk, retrieval rates remain suboptimal, often under 38% to 58% depending on institution and follow-up care, leaving many patients at continued risk for complications.

Reported IVC filter side effects can include:

• Death
• Heart Attack
• Stroke
• Pulmonary embolism
• Chest pain and compromised respiration (breathing)
• Perforation/puncture of the inferior vena cava, heart, lungs, blood vessels or other internal organs
• Hemorrhagic pericardial effusion (excess fluid around the heart) and cardiac tamponade (compression of the heart caused by excess fluid around the heart)
• IVC filter embolization and migration
• Tilting/malposition of the IVC filter
• Fracture and splintering of IVC filter
• Embedded IVC filter requiring surgery
• Difficulty removing or retrieving the IVC filter

IVC Filter Migration and Fracture

The filter may detach and move within the IVC. It may also fracture and shards of broken filter may travel or “migrate” away from the device. These broken parts may then move through the inferior vena cava and end up lodging in other organs, most notably the heart. The medical term for this is embolization.

Several deaths have been caused by IVC filter migration. In February 2015, filter maker C. R. Bard settled an IVC filter lawsuit brought by a man who alleged that a leg that broke off of his Bard Recovery Filter System, traveled to his heart and punctured it, requiring open heart surgery.

Device Perforation of IVC and Internal Organs

The inferior vena cava runs alongside many internal organs. When the filter perforates (or pierces) the wall of the inferior vena cava it may not only damage that particular vessel, but internal organs near it as well.

Medical studies have reported that the piercing of the IVC by filters has damaged areas of the body, such as the:

• Heart
• Aorta
• Lungs
• Small and large intestine
• Liver
• Pancreas
• Kidney
• Spinal column
• Other veins including the renal vein (which drains the kidney)
• Organs comprising the genital and urinary system
• Diaphragm

A 2013 study of 591 patients who received an inferior vena cava filter between 2006 and 2009 found that 46% of the filters had penetrated the inferior vena cava and punctured adjacent organs. 

More recent clinical reviews confirm that IVC filter perforation remains a significant complication, with rates around 19% for both permanent and retrievable filters, and that the risk increases with longer filter implantation times.

Perforations typically involve filter legs or struts penetrating through the wall of the vena cava and into nearby organs, consistent with prior reports. These complications can cause serious clinical issues, sometimes making filter removal impossible or highly dangerous. 

IVC Filter Thrombosis

Thrombosis is the medical term for the clotting of the blood in a blood vessel. Filter devices are designed to catch blood clots, but over time the filter may partially or completely block the inferior vena cava. This is referred to as filter thrombosis. It may be due to the filter doing its job—catching blood clots—or the filter itself may be the primary cause of the blood clot. If the blockage is only partial there may be no symptoms. Complete occlusion of the inferior vena cava is accompanied by swelling, pain and other serious complications.

IVC Filter Lawsuit: FDA Issues Safety Communications

In 2010, the FDA issued its first safety communication regarding IVC filters. Safety communications are the FDA’s primary means of alerting health care professionals to safety risks associated with drugs and medical devices. The FDA warned of serious adverse events associated with the filters and expressed its concern that the filters, which are designed to be retrievable, were being left in place too long. The agency recommended that doctors consider removing the filter as soon as the need for protection from a pulmonary embolism is no longer needed. The problem with that is that the longer a filter is left in place, the more difficult it becomes to remove.

Unfortunately, it appears that the FDA warning had little effect. It was reported that at one large Boston medical center, less than 10% of the filters were being removed, even though they were no longer needed. In 2014, the FDA issued a new safety communication. The FDA’s own analysis had found that if the filters were not removed between 29 and 54 days after implantation, the risks associated with having the filter in place began to exceed all the possible benefits.

“… if the patient’s transient risk for pulmonary embolism has passed, the risk/benefit profile begins to favor removal of the IVC filter between 29 and 54 days after implantation.” -FDA Safety Communication, May 6, 2014

Part of the problem is that the filters can be very difficult or impossible to remove. In one study of 978 patients, nearly 20% of the attempts to remove the filters were unsuccessful. In over a seven and a half year period, only 8.5% of the filters were successfully removed.

IVC Filter Lawsuit: A Failure to Warn

Central to each IVC filter lawsuit is the question of whether or not the manufacturers have taken adequate steps to warn consumers of the risks associated with their filters. Considerable evidence shows that certain manufacturers failed to warn the public about the dangers of IVC filters.

C.R Bard IVC Filters

On September 3 and 4, 2015, NBC Nightly News aired a two-part report on an IVC filter (Recovery Filter System) manufactured by C. R. Bard and approved for market in 2003. In part 1, NBC reported that Bard’s Recovery filter had been associated with 27 deaths and 300 other adverse effects. Bard responded to problems with its filter by hiring a public relations firm and conducting a confidential study, which found that the risk of death, filter fracture and filter movement were all significantly higher for the Recovery filter than its competitors. According to the NBC report, even after it became aware of the serious risks associated with its filter, Bard sold 34,000 Recovery filters before replacing it with a new model, the G2, in 2005.

The second part of NBC’s investigation focused on a 510(k) application submitted by Bard to gain FDA clearance to sell its Recovery filter. The FDA had rejected an earlier application and Bard turned to regulatory specialist Kay Fuller for help. Fuller, however, raised concerns about the safety of the device. Bard’s response, she says, was to threaten her with removal from their team.

In December 2015, NBC News published a follow-up report on the Bard’s G2 IVC filter (approved via 510[k] process after the Recovery filter). According to the story, Bard was aware of problems with the G2 shortly after its release, but continued to sell the device and a similar filter, the G2 Express. (The Express was released in 2008.) By 2010 Bard had sold over 160,000 G2 and G2 Express IVC filters. Dr. William T. Kuo is an interventional radiologist and the director of Stanford University’s IVC Filter Clinic. He told NBC News, “The number of complications, the frequency of severe failures makes it obvious that it was never safe to be implanted.” Kuo believes that a Bard IVC filter recall should have been issued.

In September 2015, a New York woman filed a Bard IVC filter lawsuit after imaging tests revealed that the filter had punctured her inferior vena cava. Struts (or legs) of the device were protruding toward her lumbar spine, but doctors have advised her that surgery to remove the device would be too risky.

Here are several other Bard IVC filters that have been the subject of at least one IVC filter lawsuit:

• Eclipse IVC Filter
• Meridian IVC Filter
• Denali IVC Filter

Cook Medical, Inc. IVC Filters

The other filter manufacturer playing a major role in the IVC filter litigation is Cook Medical, Inc. Nearly 200 IVC filter lawsuit cases were recently consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (see below). Cook makes two filters, the Günther Tulip, which received FDA approval in 2003, and the Cook Celect, which was approved by the FDA in 2008, under the 510(k) process.

Doctors at the University of California, San Francisco investigated the Celect and Günther Tulip filters and published their results in 2012 in the medical journal Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology. They found that 86% of the Günther Tulip and Celect filters had perforated through the IVC. After 71 days all of the filters showed “some degree of vena caval perforation, often as a progressive process.” Surprisingly, the newer Celect filter actually had higher perforation rates than the Günther Tulip and the most severe penetrations—those in which the filter passed through the inferior vena cava and contacted or perforated an outside structure—were more frequent in the newer Celect filter.

The progressive nature of the perforation was confirmed in an April 2013 study published in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (JVIR). In that study researchers compared patients with the Günther Tulip filter (GTF) to patients with another similar device, the Option IVC filter. They found that “only GTFs showed time-dependent penetration, with penetration becoming more likely after prolonged indwelling times.” A June 2015 study comparing the same two filters, also published in the JVIR, found, “The incidence of strut perforation was 43% for Celect filters versus 0% for Option filters.”

The Cook filters appear to be uniquely prone to perforation problems. Did Cook properly warn patients and physicians of the defects associated with its filters? The plaintiffs in each Cook IVC filter lawsuit will argue they did not.

IVC Filter Lawsuit: Multidistrict Litigation

IVC filter lawsuits have seen significant developments recently, especially within the multidistrict litigation (MDL) frameworks for major manufacturers Bard and Cook Medical. As of August 2025, there are approximately 6,980 pending cases against Cook Medical in MDL No. 2570, with a total of about 11,449 lawsuits filed overall. These ongoing suits continue to allege severe injuries caused by defective IVC filters, such as filter fracture, migration, embolization, and perforation of the inferior vena cava or surrounding organs.

The Bard MDL has officially closed following confidential settlements, but individual lawsuits remain active, including notable cases progressing toward trial until recent dismissals. Recent trial verdicts have included multi-million dollar awards in the past years before the MDL closure, reflecting serious harm caused by Bard's filters, although Bard’s cases are now largely resolved through settlements.

In many cases, those who have filed an IVC filter lawsuit will be grouped together with other similar cases in what is known as multidistrict litigation (MDL). Instead of trying each IVC filter lawsuit separately, multidistrict litigation brings all the cases before one judge to avoid having conflicting pretrial rulings and to conserve resources of both plaintiffs and defendants in the discovery process. The MDL process gives both sides a chance to see how courts and juries view the evidence.

In August of 2015, 16 cases against Bard were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. By the end of January 2016, the Bard IVC filter lawsuit count in Arizona was up to 90. More than 200 cases against Cook Medical have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (MDL No. 2570 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation), and the pace of the IVC filter lawsuit filings against Cook increased significantly in the latter half of 2015.

Types of IVC Filters:

• Bard Recovery IVC Filter
• Bard G2 IVC Filter
• Bard G2 Express / G2x Filter
• Bard Eclipse
• Bard Meridian
• Bard Denali IVC Filter
• Cook Günther Tulip
• Cook Celect IVC Filter
• B Braun Tempofilter IVC Filter
• Cordis OptEase IVC Filter

IVC Filters Involved in Lawsuits

Lawsuits primarily focus on certain models from Bard and Cook Medical:

Both Bard and Cook Medical have faced allegations of failing to adequately warn patients and physicians about these risks.

Recent IVC Filter Lawsuit Verdicts & Settlements

Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits

Bard’s multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2641), which consolidated thousands of lawsuits related to their IVC filters, officially closed by 2021 after the company reached confidential settlements with more than 8,000 plaintiffs.

Before the MDL closure, Bard faced several bellwether trials with mixed results:

• In 2018, a federal jury awarded $3.6 million to a plaintiff injured by Bard’s G2 filter, which included compensatory and punitive damages. This verdict marked an important victory for plaintiffs and influenced settlement dynamics.
• Other Bard trial outcomes included dismissals and verdicts in favor of Bard, but overall, Bard agreed to numerous settlements behind closed doors, resolving the bulk of cases.

Individual lawsuits, which were once advancing toward trial, have since been dismissed post-MDL closure as part of the confidential settlement process.

Cook Medical IVC Filter Litigation

Unlike Bard, Cook Medical’s MDL (No. 2570) remains active and ongoing as of 2025, with approximately 6,980 pending cases filed nationwide. Settlement conferences and negotiations are underway but no global or mass settlement agreement has yet been publicly announced.

Cook has experienced mixed trial results:

• The company lost several bellwether trials, with jury awards including a $3 million verdict in 2019 for a plaintiff whose Celect filter fractured and migrated, leading to significant injury and surgical intervention.
• Cook won some early bellwether trials but faced reversals and appeals on others, leaving much litigation unresolved and ongoing.

Other Notable Settlements and Verdicts

• Beyond Bard and Cook, other manufacturers such as Rex Medical (Argon Option IVC filter) and Boston Scientific have faced lawsuits.
• The largest known verdict to date is a $33.7 million jury award handed down in Philadelphia against Rex Medical in 2019, highlighting the severe injuries possible from defective filters.
• Boston Scientific, without an MDL, typically proceeds directly to trial and has faced substantial verdicts although no large-scale settlements have been reported.

Who Qualifies for an IVC Filter Lawsuit?

Individuals may qualify to file an IVC filter lawsuit if they meet certain criteria:

• Proof they had an IVC filter implanted, particularly Bard or Cook Medical models known for complications.
• Evidence of complications such as fracture, migration, embolization, perforation, or thrombosis linked to the filter.
• Documentation of resulting medical costs or surgeries related to filter removal or filter-related injuries.
• Patients who have undergone filter removal surgery or have pending revision procedures.
• Cases must generally comply with the applicable lawsuit deadline or statute of limitations based on implantation or injury date.

How Much Can You Receive in an IVC Lawsuit Settlement?

Settlement amounts in IVC filter lawsuits vary widely based on the severity of injuries, the strength of evidence regarding manufacturer negligence, and the specific facts of each case. Past verdicts and settlements have ranged from hundreds of thousands to multi-million dollar awards. For example, Bard’s first bellwether trial resulted in a $3.6 million verdict, and other cases have seen compensatory and punitive damages reaching several million dollars.

Speak with the Experienced IVC Filter Lawyers at Wisner Baum

If you or a family member have been harmed by a defective IVC filter, the dedicated attorneys at Wisner Baum are here to help. With extensive experience in medical device litigation, including high-stakes IVC filter cases, Wisner Baum has successfully secured substantial recoveries for injured clients nationwide. Contact Wisner Baum today for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss your legal options and fight for the justice and compensation you deserve.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About IVC Filter Lawsuits

Q: How do I know if my IVC filter was recalled or involved in a lawsuit?

You can check your medical records or ask your doctor for the manufacturer and model of your IVC filter. Commonly recalled or litigated models include Bard’s Recovery, G2, G2 Express, Eclipse, Meridian, Denali, and Cook’s Günther Tulip and Celect filters. Manufacturers and FDA websites also list recalled devices. If your filter is from one of these models, you may have grounds to join a lawsuit or settlement.

Q: What symptoms or complications indicate IVC filter problems?

Symptoms can vary but often include chest pain, leg swelling, shortness of breath, sudden severe chest or abdominal pain, dizziness, or symptoms related to device migration or fracture. Other complications include perforation of blood vessels or organs, filter embolization, and thrombosis. Consult a doctor immediately if you experience any unusual symptoms after an IVC filter implant.

Q: Can I file a lawsuit if my IVC filter hasn’t failed or caused complications yet?

Generally, lawsuits are based on proven complications like filter fracture, migration, embolization, or perforation. However, some lawsuits include patients who had filter removal surgery or face significant risk due to device design. It’s important to consult an IVC filter lawsuit attorney to evaluate your specific situation.

Q: Who qualifies to file an IVC filter lawsuit?

You may qualify if you had an IVC filter implanted and subsequently suffered complications like fracture, migration, embolization, perforation, or thrombosis. Documentation such as medical records proving implant and injuries, and evidence of medical costs or surgeries, is critical. Cases must also comply with the statute of limitations or lawsuit deadlines in your state.

Q: What questions do IVC filter attorneys typically ask when evaluating a case?

Common questions include:

• When was your IVC filter implanted?
• Which company manufactured your filter?
• What kind of problems have you experienced with the filter?
• How have these complications impacted your daily life?

Providing detailed answers helps attorneys assess your claim’s viability.

Q: Why are IVC filters difficult or dangerous to remove?

Filters can embed themselves into the vein wall, fracture, or perforate adjacent organs, making removal risky. The FDA recommends removing retrievable filters usually between 29 and 54 days after implantation to reduce long-term risks, but removal attempts can fail about 20% of the time due to these complications.

Q: How long do I have to file an IVC filter lawsuit?

Statutes of limitations vary by state, usually ranging from one to three years from the date of injury or discovery of harm. It’s essential to consult a lawyer promptly to avoid missing your filing deadline.

Q: How much compensation can I expect in an IVC filter lawsuit or settlement?

Settlement amounts vary widely depending on injury severity, evidence, and negotiation. Past cases have resulted in compensatory and punitive damages ranging from thousands to several million dollars. Ongoing settlements, especially in the Cook MDL, remain confidential but generally aim to provide compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages.

Q: What is multidistrict litigation (MDL) and how does it affect my lawsuit?

MDLs group many similar lawsuits before one judge to streamline the legal process, reduce duplicative discovery, and promote settlement discussions. Both Bard and Cook IVC filter lawsuits have MDLs. While Bard’s MDL has closed with settlements, Cook’s MDL remains active with thousands of pending cases.

Speak with an Experienced IVC Filter Lawsuit Attorney at Wisner Baum

If you or a family member has suffered complications from an IVC filter, the attorneys at Wisner Baum have the experience, resources, and dedication to help you pursue the justice and compensation you deserve. Our legal team has handled thousands of defective medical device cases nationwide and is not afraid to take on major manufacturers in court. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation to learn your legal options.