2013 Claims over Bard IVC Filter Failure Allegations Now Being Accepted by Resource4thePeople Attorneys
Current consumer inquiries about legal rights over alleged problems with medical devices are among those being accepted for Resource4thePeople´s free legal consultations to patients who are alleging serious health problems.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) April 18, 2013
Resource4thePeople announced today that it will accept 2013 claims from consumers who are alleging that they may have suffered serious side effects as a result of having Bard IVC Filters implants.
The side effects being investigated by Resource4thePeople attorneys include those outlined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization and IVC perforation.
“A previous announcement about free consultations did not include the fact that 2013 cases will be accepted,” said Resource4thePeople. “We were receiving a significant account of inquires from consumers over the time limits involved in filing such a claim.”
Resource4thePeople said that many consumers have inquired about their legal rights in regards to what options they have in cases win which they are claiming that Bard IVC Filters allegedly may have failed and caused serious side effects for patients.
“The fact that a respected medical group has responded* to concerns generated by consumers has increased the number of inquiries we are receiving from patients who may have suffered serious side effects from problems with Bard IVC Filters,” said Resource4thePeople.
Many of the consumer inquiries were generated by the recent announcement of a reevaluation about the safety of the devices from medical professionals and increasing numbers of Adverse Event Reports compiled by the Food and Drug Administration, said Resource4thePeople.
The professional review is being launched by The Society of Interventional Radiology and Society for Vascular Surgery,** which said that it will form a task force to measure the health risk of IVC filters to patients.
The Food and Drug Administration also has warned* about increasing numbers of Adverse Event Reports detailing risks involved with the use of the devices.
“The fact that a respected medical society and the FDA are both raising concerns about the safety of IVC filters has generated a great deal of patient concern and questions to us about the availability of legal advice,” said Resource4thePeople.
“One of the devices mentioned frequently in the listing of over 900 Adverse Event Reports is the C.R. Bard Filter. In response to these inquiries from consumers we are providing links to lawyers who are offering free consultations.”
These consultations are now being offered to provide consumers with a comprehensive review of the legal options that may be available to them to seek compensation for medical costs, pain and suffering and other expenses related to an IVC failure, said Resource4thePeople.
IVC filters — inferior vena cava filters — are medical devices that are designed to prevent blood clots in patients at risk for a pulmonary embolism in cases in which an anticoagulant is contraindicated or proven ineffective.
The FDA’s warning issued to health care professionals and consumers reports that serious health problems can occur on these spider-like devices when the legs that extend from it to block clots break off.
What can then occur, according to the FDA is that these broken parts from the filter may travel to other parts of the body and cause serious problems such as lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization and IVC perforation.
Resource4thePeople notes that lawsuits were recently filed by patients who had Bard IVC filters implanted in their bodies and claim to have suffered serious health problems and among them are one*** that alleges the devices are prone to fracture and cause tears in body organs, including the heart.
The lawsuit also alleges that C.R. Bard is liable because company officials were aware of IVC filters problems but failed to adequately warn patients and health care professionals.
The lawsuit claims that an estimated 100,000 of the devices have been implanted in patients in the United States.
These lawsuits and the medical society´s formation of an IVC filter follow the warning issued by the FDA detailing the large number of Adverse Event Reports:
“Since 2005, the FDA has received 921 device adverse event reports involving IVC filters, of which 328 involved device migration, 146 involved embolizations (detachment of device components), 70 involved perforation of the IVC, and 56 involved filter fracture. Some of these events led to adverse clinical outcomes in patients. These types of events may be related to a retrievable filter remaining in the body for long periods of time, beyond the time when the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) has subsided.
“The FDA is concerned that these retrievable IVC filters, intended for short-term placement, are not always removed once a patient´s risk for PE subsides. Known long term risks associated with IVC filters include but are not limited to lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization and IVC perforation.”
Consumer4thePeople is also recommending that patients who have had IVC filters implanted in their bodies actively research the FDA’s Adverse Event Reports files, which are public records.
Resource4thePeople also is announcing its support for The Society of Interventional Radiology and Society for Vascular Surgery’s announcement of the formation of a medical review — PRESERVE — to analyze the health risk of IVC filters to patients and is encouraged by the following mission statement issued by the group:
“PRESERVE data will allow a systematic, functional view, representative of all filters placed in the United States, thus, all stakeholders–individuals, health care professionals, insurers and government regulators–will be armed with the knowledge they need on patient risk and, subsequently, quality improvement in filter placement, management and retrieval,” said SIR President Marshall E. Hicks, M.D.
***First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, In the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County; Case ID120800814
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/4/prweb10641369.htm