IVC Filter Lawsuits

Home / IVC Filter Lawsuits


Defective Drugs and Medical Devices

NGK Law holds manufacturers of dangerous drugs and medical devices accountable.

Read More

Personal Injury

NGK Law helps badly injured people obtain
compensation they deserve.

Read More

Auto & Truck

NGK Law gets those injured
by trucks and cars the compensation
they deserve.

Read More


NGK Law gets injured workers their rightful

Read More

St. Louis IVC Filter Lawsuit Attorney

In August 2010, the FDA issued a warning regarding the safety of IVC filters and the risk of adverse events with long-term use of the IVC filters.  This FDA release began the public’s awareness of the potential for St. Louis IVC filter lawsuits.[1]  In the FDA IVC filter warning, the FDA stated that since 2005, it had received 921 IVC filter adverse events, of which 328 involved IVC filter device migration, 146 involved IVC filter embolizations, 70 involved perforation of the IVC filter, and 56 involved IVC filter fracture.  The FDA reported that, and St. Louis IVC filter lawsuits allege, that those IVC filter adverse events led to adverse clinical outcomes in patients.  The report notes and St. Louis IVC Filter lawsuits allege that the type of adverse events were believed to be related to retrievable IVC filters remaining in the body for long periods of time, beyond the time when the risk of pulmonary embolism had subsided.  In the August 2010 release, the FDA stated it was concerned that the retrievable IVC filters, intended for short-term placement, are not always removed once a patient’s risk for PE subsides.  The FDA stated, and St. Louis IVC filter lawsuits allege, that 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.[2]

In August 2010, the FDA recommended that the implanting physicians responsible for the ongoing care of patients with retrievable IVC filters consider removing the IVC filter as soon as the protection from the pulmonary embolism is no longer needed.[3]  The FDA encouraged, and St. Louis IVC filter lawsuits allege, that all physicians involved in the treatment and follow up of IVC filter recipients should consider the risk and benefit of filter removal for each patient.  If a patient has a retrievable filter that should be removed based on his or her own risk/benefit profile, the primary care physician should refer the patient for IVC filter removable when feasible and clinically indicated.  Unfortunately, for many individuals, the IVC filters were not removed in time, thereby causing serious injuries and creating the grounds for a St. Louis IVC filter lawsuit.

More disturbingly, recent research has come out regarding the failure rate of certain types of IVC filters.  In particular, the Ni and Win study examined available information regarding the failure of various IVC filters.[4]  In a single-center study conducted from 2004 until 2009, Bard Recovery IVC filter and Bard G2 IVC filters were found to be associated with a high prevalence of fracture and embolization, with potentially life threatening problems.  In particular, 6 of 52 Bard G2 filters fractured (12%) and in 2 of those 6 cases, the patients had asymptomatic end organ fragment embolization.[5]  In another retrospective study from 2004 to 2010 among patients with Bard Recovery, Bard G2, and Bard G2 express IVC filters presenting for filter removal, overall fracture rate was 12%.[6]  St. Louis IVC Filter lawsuits allege, and the report by Ni and Win found, that Bard IVC filters are reported to be associated with a high rate of strut fracture (16%) and fragment embolization (25%).  As grounds for a St. Louis IVC Filter lawsuit, 5 of 7 cases had at least one fragment embolize to the heart (71%).  Three of the patients experienced life threatening ventricular tachycardia and/or cardiac tamponade, of which one had sudden death at home.[7]

The St. Louis IVC Filter attorneys at NGK Law are actively investigating and handling St. Louis IVC Filter lawsuits.  NGK Law is particularly interested in individuals that have been injured by the Bard G2 IVC filter, the Bard Recovery IVC filter, or the Bard Express IVC filter.  However, NGK Law is investigating St. Louis IVC Filter lawsuits involving the Gunther Tulip IVC filter, the Celect filter and the Cook IVC filters to determine if there are sufficient grounds for St. Louis IVC filter lawsuits.  NGK Law is committed to helping individuals that have suffered from IVC filter injuries by investigating and handling St. Louis IVC Filter lawsuits.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a St. Louis IVC filter, contact the St. Louis IVC filter lawsuit attorneys at NGK Law immediately at 1-844-564-5529, or fill out our online form to speak with one of the St. Louis IVC Filter lawsuit attorneys.


[1] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010). Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters: Initial Communication: Risk of Adverse Events with Long Term Use. Washington, DC.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.[4] Ni, Hahn and Win, Lei Lei, “Retrievable inferior vena cava filters for venous thromboembolism,” ISRN Radiology, Vol. 2013 (2013 p. 1-8).[5] W. Nicholson, W. J. Nicholson, P. Tolerico, et al. “Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 170, No. 20, pp. 1827-1831, 2010.[6] K. Vijay, J. A. Hughes, A. S. Burdette, et al. “Fractured Bard recovery, G2 and G2 express inferior vena cava filters:  incidents, clinical consequences, and outcomes of removal attempts,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 188-194, 2012.[7] W. Nicholson, et al. Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade,.”