Quantcast

Alleged Bard IVC Filter Failure Lawsuits Update: Resource4thePeople Establishes New Information Bank for Consumers

June 6, 2013

This resource will provide consumers access to information about legal rights involving allegations of dangerous side effects, including deep vein thrombosis, filter fracture, migration and perforation from use of filters. Site also includes details of FDA health warning about IVC filter risks the agency is reviewing.

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 06, 2013

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivemedicaldevices/bard-ivc.html

Resource4thePeople announced today that it is now providing consumers an information bank with updated information about litigation involving claims that patients who have had Bard IVC Filters implanted in their bodies have suffered alleged serious side effects.

Among the other related data on the site is a copy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration´s Aug. 9, 2010 health advisory* to physicians and consumers about the agency´s concerns about health risks from the use of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters.

“Although this warning was issued several years ago we have been receiving an increased number of inquiries from consumers about what legal rights they may have in cases in which they have suffered alleged serious health problems, some of which are life-threatening,” said Resource4thePeople.

“We are in the process of responding to these inquiries by providing additions to the Bard IVC filters litigation page and will continue to do so as this litigation proceeds.

“The site also includes information about free consultations from our national network of attorneys that are being offered to consumers who want to know just what legal rights for which they may be eligible.”

The side effects being investigated by Resource4thePeople attorneys are those outlined in the health warning by the FDA, including lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), filter fracture, filter migration, filter embolization and IVC perforation.

“These are very serious side effects that are outlined by the FDA as well as being the subject of inquiries to us from consumers,” said Resource4thePeople. “We are finding a growing interest in the details of the risks involved with IVC filters.”

The site also contains detailed, simple-to-understand information about how the filters work and the problems that have been reported to the FDA in Adverse Event Reports. Here is part of the FDA warning:

“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.

“FDA reviewed the literature and is conducting quantitative decision analysis modeling to evaluate the change in the risk/benefit profile after retrievable IVC filter implantation over time. More information about FDA´s decision analysis model including risk/benefit implantation timeframe suggestions will be made available in an update to this communication as well as in a future publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal.”

The most recent lawsuit 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.

Resource4thePeople also notes that a respected medical group has responded*** to concerns about the safety of IVC filters.

A 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.

IVC filters are medical devices 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 health 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 also notes that another recent lawsuit*** filed by a patient who had a Bard IVC filters implant 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.

Sources:

*http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm221707.htm

**Case # 2:13-cv-2281, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

**http://www.sirweb.org/news/newsPDF/Release_PRESERVE_Final_.pdf

****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/prweb2013/6/prweb10801551.htm


Source: prweb



comments powered by Disqus