New Bard IVC Filter Failure Lawsuit Allegations Update: Resource4thePeople Adds More Personnel to Handle Consultations with Consumers
Nationwide network of attorneys expanded in response to increased number of inquiries from consumers about their legal rights to seek compensation over allegations of dangerous side effects, including deep vein thrombosis, filter fracture, migration and perforation from use of filters.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) July 01, 2013
Resource4thePeople announced today that it has expanded its legal resources providing consumers with free consultations about the possibility of seeking compensation over alleged side effects from Bard IVC filters.
“It has become necessary to add personnel in order to adequately address the needs of consumers who are inquiring about their legal rights in connection with allegations that Bard IVC filters failed,” said Resource4thePeople.
“We are committed to providing experienced, aggressive legal representation for consumers who meet the legal standards involved in filing claims or lawsuits over these allegations. Any consumers who have questions about their eligibility in such cases should contact us immediately to preserve all of their legal options.”
Resource4thePeople said the increased volume of inquiries can be partially attributed to a recently created information bank on the organization’s web site.
This information is providing updated information about litigation involving claims that patients who have had Bard IVC Filters implanted in their bodies have suffered alleged serious side effects.
“Many consumers seeking information about these allegations were unaware of the Food and Drug Administration’s health advisory to physicians and consumers about concerns raised by the agency in connection with the use of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters,” said Resource4thePeople.
“That is one of the reasons we posted the FDA’s Aug. 9, 2010 health advisory* in the information bank and it has generated a significant increase in the number of inquiries our staff has been receiving.”
Resource4thePeople said that in addition to adding additional personnel to handle consumer inquiries, the Bard IVC filters litigation page will continue to be updated with news 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.
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.
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.
**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/2013/7/prweb10880354.htm