A Mississippi man filed a lawsuit to obtain monetary awards as compensation for pain and suffering caused by an irremovable IVC filter medical device.

Mississippi man Alec Caldwell had a blood clot filter implanted in his inferior vena cava. It seemed the device was working well until he started to experience severe pain.

Caldwell attempted to have his filter taken out and discovered that the device was not only impossible to remove, but also had rotated and damaged his essential IVC vein.

He has since taken legal action and filed a product liability and personal injury lawsuit against the device manufacturer, who allegedly knew about the risk of perforation and difficulties with removal.

Complications With Perforation And Removal

IVC filters may shift and become tilted, situating the device in a position that would lead to vein perforation and extended medical problems.
Image: Research Gate

Caldwell had the Eclipse model IVC filter implanted in his body on Sept. 29, 2010. It was meant to stop blood clots from traveling to the lungs, which could cause pulmonary embolism to occur.

Bard, the makers of the IVC filter, allegedly knew about the device’s risks and didn’t inform the consumer. The lawsuit states that Bard was aware of the product’s “serious design and manufacturing flaws causing it to have inadequate stability and structural integrity, as well as a high propensity to perforate the vena cava.”

On Dec. 9, Caldwell decided to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the medical device that caused him serious pain and suffering.

In the lawsuit, prosecutors argue on Caldwell’s behalf, claiming that he “suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, psychological trauma, anxiety, hedonic damages, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, the need for medical monitoring of the Eclipse filter, and any other form of damages under the law of the subject forum.”

The prosecutor intends to hold Bard liable for manufacturing, information and design defects, negligence due to failure to recall products and warn consumers, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The goal is to provide Caldwell with enough financial restitution to cover his medical bills, lost income and more.

If you experienced difficulties removing your IVC filter, you may also be entitled to compensation.

Take the next step and request a free case evaluation to learn about your legal rights.

The post Mississippi Man Files Lawsuit Over Irremovable IVC Filter appeared first on Citizens Report.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that nearly 20 percent of IVC filters were unsuccessfully removed.

Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are marketed as a temporary treatment for pulmonary embolism.

The medical device, meant to be removed when a patient’s risk has subsided, is an attempt to avoid potential long-term problems caused by permanent filters.

However, researchers have discovered that IVC filters are not always removable. Recent data illustrates that unretrieved IVC filters may come with a variety of additional complications.

Details of the Study

Researchers analyzed the medical records of 952 patients with IVC filters.
Image: IRMC

In April 2013, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study that tested the safety of retrievable vena cava filters. The research focused on making conclusions about “complications, follow-up data, date of IVC filter retrieval, and use of anticoagulant therapy.”

Boston Medical Center began reviewing IVC filter use between August 1, 2003, and February 28, 2011. The study included 978 patients total, but 26 were excluded due to incomplete medical records. Overall, researchers analyzed 952 medical records.

Discovering Complications

Patients experiencing complications with IVC filters may need to undergo prolonged treatment in a hospital setting.
Image: Medical News Today

Of the 679 retrievable IVC filters that were placed, 58 were successfully removed. However, nearly 20 percent of attempts were unsuccessful. Researchers concluded that “unretrieved removable IVC filters may carry significant long-term risks.”

Additionally, the team cited 10 serious filter-related complications stemming from the lack of removal. These painful complexities required patients to be admitted to the hospital, sometimes for an extended period of time.

Examples of these issues  included a 33-year-old man with a fractured IVC filter that lodged in a pulmonary artery and a 56-year-old man who experienced filter perforation that caused abdominal bleeding.

“The Food and Drug Administration recommends that IVC filters should be removed as soon as the risk of PE has subsided,” according to the study.

A systematic review of 37 studies confirmed an increased rate of complications associated with filters left in place for longer than 30 days, including recurrent deep vein thrombosis, vena cava thrombosis, organ penetration, migration, and strut fracture.

Patients who experienced complications with IVC filters should complete a no-obligation survey to find out if they are eligible for legal compensation.

The post JAMA Study Finds Difficulties Removing IVC Filters appeared first on Citizens Report.