The lawsuit was filed by eight people who were injured by the Cordis TrapEase® Permanent Vena Cava Filter or the Cordis OptEase® Retrievable Vena Cava Filter.

The lawsuit cites several studies linking OptEase and TrapEase filters with high rates of blood clots, fracture, and other major complications experienced by the plaintiffs:

OptEase filters and the TrapEase filters suffer fracture rates of 37.5% and 23.1% respectively, when left implanted a minimum of 46 months. Another recent study found that the TrapEase filter had a 64% fracture rate when left in more than four years.

Cordis IVC Filter

Cordis OptEase® Retrievable IVC Filter

Plaintiff Alice J. is a resident of Texas who was implanted with the OptEase IVC Filter on September 19, 2014. The filter tilted and become embedded in the wall of her vena cava. She suffered a failed retrieval attempt that led to further injuries, pain, and swelling.

Plaintiff Brenda M. is a resident of Texas who was implanted with the TrapEase IVC Filter on June 17, 2005. The filter fractured and perforated through the wall of her vena cava, causing life-threatening injuries and extensive medical care and treatment.

Plaintiff Amy L. is a resident of Arizona who was implanted with the OptEase IVC Filter on February 1, 2007. The filter malfunctioned and fractured. The broken pieces of the filter migrated into her lungs.

Plaintiff Diane Y. is a resident of Texas who was implanted with the TrapEase IVC Filter on January 15, 2006. The filter dislodged and migrated, causing significant medical expenses, pain, and suffering.

Plaintiff Joseph D. is a resident of Florida who was implanted with the TrapEase IVC Filter on January 12, 2008. The filter caused extensive Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), blood clots, clotting and occlusion of the vena cava, clotting of the extremities, and thrombolysis.

IVC FIlter Injury Lawsuit

Cordis TreapEase® Permanent IVC Filter

Plaintiff Christopher H. is a resident of Texas who was implanted with the TrapEase IVC Filter on January 21, 2011. The filter perforated through the wall of his vena cava, in close proximity to the intestines and threatening the aorta.

Plaintiff John M. was a resident of Montana who is now living in California. He was implanted with the OptEase IVC Filter on January 19, 2009. The filter tilted, embedded in the wall of the vena cava, and was unable to be retrieved.

Plaintiff Stephanie E. is a resident of Illinois who was implanted with an OptEase IVC Filter on February 12, 2004. The filter migrated, fractured, and was unable to be removed despite two retrieval attempts.

Lawyers accuse Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Cardinal Health Inc., and Confluent Medical Technologies of downplaying these serious safety risks.

The defendants are charged with 7 counts of strict products liability, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, and breach of express warranty.

The lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2017 in the Superior Court of the State of California (Alameda County) — Case No. RG1785842

There are now over 3,000 IVC filter lawsuits pending in state and federal courtrooms nationwide. The manufacturers include Cordis Corp., C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, B. Braun, Rex Medical, and more.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Ramon Rossi Lopez, Matthew R. Lopez, Amorina P. Lopez, and Nicholas R. Graham of the law offices of Lopez McHugh LLP in Newport Beach, California.

Editor’s note: For more information about IVC Filter lawsuits and your legal rights, please contact The Law Offices of Ben C. Martin.

Click Here for a Free Confidential Case Consultation

Related News Articles

Posted by Daily Hornet

We aim to provide progressive news that covers politics and corporate wrongdoing. We have no corporate interests to serve. No hidden agenda. We’re here to bring you the news you need to know with a grassroots twist.

One Comment

  1. Ryszard Rokicki May 6, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Just quick reminder
    In 2011, FDA denied Citizen Petition FDA-2009-P-0362 proposing the chemical material test for nitinol. If had been implemented, this test could have greatly minimized the problem of nitinol IVC filters fractures. The test was rejected not on the ground of its inefficiency but on the ground of prevention of overburdening manufacturers of nitinol products.


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.