The lawsuit was filed by a group of people who were injured by the OptEase® or TrapEase® Vena Cava Filter (“IVC Filter”) manufactured by Cordis Corporation.

The first plaintiff, Eleanor C., is a woman from Georgia who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on August 13, 2009. She suffered two life-threatening episodes of IVC Filter thrombosis (blood clots) which needed hemodialysis due to kidney failure from vein obstruction, followed by a difficult procedure to remove the IVC Filter.

The second plaintiff, Ellen F., is a woman from Texas who was implanted with the TrapEase® IVC Filter on April 14, 2003. She suffered perforation of her vein, significant stenosis and occlusion, and moderate narrowing of the vein near the filter.

The third plaintiff, McKinnis A., is a man from Louisiana who was implanted with the OptEase® IVC Filter on April 20, 2006. The filter tilted and 6 struts perforated his vein, with one of the struts against his aorta.

The fourth plaintiff, Buck C., is a man from North Dakota who was implanted with the OptEase® IVC Filter on September 21, 2013. The filter tilted, became embedded in his vein, and is no longer retrievable.

The fifth plaintiff, Marissa P., is a woman who was living in Oklahoma when she was implanted with the OptEase® IVC Filter on October 6, 2004. Her injuries occurred after she moved to Kansas. The filter tilted, became embedded, occluded, and is perforating the vein.

The sixth plaintiff, Clifford N., is a man who was living in Florida when he was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on September 10, 2004. His injuries occurred after he moved to Kentucky. The filter migrated and perforated through the wall of his vein.

The seventh plaintiff, Natalie R., is a woman who was living in New York when she was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on April 10, 2009. Her injuries occurred after she moved to South Carolina. She suffered one life-threatening episode of IVC Filter thrombosis (blood clots) and evidence that the filter was embedded. Her doctors recommended that she not attempt a procedure to remove the filter.

The eighth plaintiff, Samantha U-J., is a woman who was living in California when she was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on June 23, 2007. Her injuries occurred after she moved to Arizona. There is specific evidence that the filter is embedded and her doctors recommended that she not attempt a procedure to remove the filter.

The ninth plaintiff, Emily A., is a woman who was living in Florida when she was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter in 2003. Her injuries occurred after she moved to Nevada. There is specific evidence that the filter is embedded. Doctors recommended against a procedure to remove the filter because it would require a laparotomy and cavotomy.

The tenth plaintiff, Angela H., is a woman who was living in Florida when she was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on April 13, 2007. Her injuries occurred after she moved to Illinois. There is specific evidence that the filter has perforated her vein, tilted, embedded, and she should not attempt a retrieval procedure.

The eleventh plaintiff, Robert C., is a man from Arkansas who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on July 15, 2009. He suffered multiple extensive blood clots due to Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), limited mobility due to phlebitic syndrome of the legs, dysnea, anemia, abdominal infection after developing sepsis from a blood clot in his leg, hematoma, clotting from the IVC Filter, and lymphedema. His wife, Kathy C., is seeking compensation for loss of consortium.

The thirteenth plaintiff, Marshon B., is a woman from Michigan who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on June 14, 2010. She is seeking compensation for perforation of her vein, which requires constant medical monitoring. She also lives with the daily fear that her IVC Filter will malfunction, knowing that if it does, little can be done. Her husband, Michael B., has joined the lawsuit for loss of consortium.

The fifteenth plaintiff, Karen H., is a woman from Michigan who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on April 23, 2004. She suffered perforation of her vein and requires constant medical monitoring.

The sixteenth plaintiff, Jean (John) L., is a man from New Hampshire who was implanted with the OptEase® IVC Filter on July 15, 2009. His filter fractured and the broken pieces are unable to be retrieved.

The seventeenth plaintiff, Dorothea D., is a woman from Illinois who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on May 12, 2016. She was injured when the filter tilted and migrated downward.

The eighteenth plaintiff, Freddie S., is a man from Missouri who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on May 20, 2013. The filter is embedded in his vein and cannot be removed. His wife, Glodean S., is a seeking compensation for loss of consortium.

The twentieth plaintiff, Annie T., is a woman from Maryland who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on March 2, 2012. The IVC Filter is fully embedded in the wall of her vein and cannot be removed.

The twenty-first plaintiff, Michael W., is a man from Missouri who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on June 27, 2014. He is seeking compensation for injuries related to IVC thrombosis (blood clots): bilateral iliac, femora, and popliteal vein occlusion, as well as a persistent blood clot in the filter.

The lawsuit accuses Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, and Confluent Medical Technologies of negligence for selling defective medical devices and failing to warn about risks.

The lawsuit was filed on June 20, 2018 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda — Case No. RG16812476 .

There are now over 8,000 other IVC filter lawsuits pending against Cordis Corp. Rex Medical, Cook Medical, B. Braun, C.R. Bard, and other manufacturers in state and federal courtrooms nationwide.

The plaintiff is represented by attorney Ben C. Martin of The Law Offices of Ben C. Martin in Dallas, Texas.

Scales of JusticeEditor’s note: If you or a loved one has been injured by an IVC filter, you should contact a lawyer experienced in this type of litigation.

The Law Offices of Ben C. Martin was one of the first in the country to pursue these cases. In addition, Ben C. Martin has a leadership position in virtually all of the cases against the various manufacturers of these dangerous devices.

For more information about IVC filter lawsuits and your legal rights, please contact The Law Offices of Ben C. Martin. He offers a Free Case Evaluation.

Click Here to Learn More About The Law Offices of Ben C. Martin

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.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.