Alleged Bard IVC Filter Failure Lawsuits Update: Resource4thePeople Reports New Cases Continue To Be Filed
Consumers can contact Resource4thePeople’s national network of attorneys for free consultations about their legal options to join with those seeking compensation for alleged side effects, including deep vein thrombosis, filter fracture, migration and perforation.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) May 11, 2013
Resource4thePeople announced today a consumer update of the progress of litigation involving claims that patients who have had Bard IVC Filters implanted in their bodies have suffered alleged serious side effects.
The side effects being investigated by Resource4thePeople attorneys are 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.
The most recent update from Resource4thePeople involves the filing of a Bard IVC Filter lawsuit by a New York woman who is claiming in her lawsuit that the device was defectively designed, broke and caused her to suffer significant internal injuries.*
The woman, in her lawsuit, said the filter was implanted to prevent blood clots but the device broke apart with particles migrating through her body and damaging her internal organs.
“These allegations mirror the complaints that our national team of lawyers has been receiving inquiries about and we will continue to investigate these claims on behalf of the consumers that are contacting us,” said Resource4thePeople.
“Free consultations are being provided to consumers who contact us about the legal options that may be available to them to seek compensation for costs such as medical expenses, hospitalization, loss of wage, pain and suffering and other expenses.”
Resource4thePeople said that many consumers have inquired about their legal rights in regards to what options they have in cases in 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 allegations we are receiving about serious side effects from problems with Bard IVC Filters,” said Resource4thePeople.
Consumer inquiries also have been generated by the announcement of a reevaluation about the safety of IVC filters from the Food and Drug Administration Aug. 9, 2010, *** said Resource4thePeople.
The professional peer group medical review is being launched by The Society of Interventional Radiology and Society for Vascular Surgery,** which announced Feb. 13, 2013 that it will form a task force to measure the health risk of IVC filters to patients.
“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 by the FDA is the C.R. Bard Filter, 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 another recent lawsuit filed by a patient who had Bard IVC filters implanted in their bodies is 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.
The 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.”
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.
*Case # 2:13-cv-2281, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
****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/prweb2013/5/prweb10719679.htm