The first plaintiff, Amy P., is a woman from Florida who was implanted with the TrapEase® IVC Filter on April 28, 2013. She was injured by IVC thrombosis, bilateral extremity swelling, pain, unsuccessful thrombectomy and hospitalization. The filter poses a progressive risk of perforation of the vena cava and surrounding vital organs, migration, and fracture causing serious injury and death. These complications can occur at any moment, which has caused her to suffer severe fear, stress and anxiety and loss of enjoyment of life.
The second plaintiff, Alison P., is a woman from New Jersey who was implanted with the TrapEase® IVC Filter on July 22, 2008. Her symptoms include IVC thrombosis, left extremity swelling, pain, thrombolysis, angioplasty of the IVC, placement of stents in veins, and hospitalization.
The third plaintiff, John B., is a man from North Carolina who was implanted with the TrapEase® IVC filter on July 31, 2002. He has suffered symptoms and injuries related to a fractured IVC Filter.
The fourth plaintiff, Shirley D. and her husband Terrance K., is a woman from New York who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on August 16, 2010. She has suffered injuries related to possible tilt and perforation, with the superior tip of the IVC Filter in contact with the anterior wall of the IVC and filter strut positioned immediately adjacent to the outer wall of the IVC.
The fifth plaintiff, Nevis O. and his wife Thelma Jean O., is a man from Wisconsin who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on June 19, 2008. His injuries include perforation of the IVC.
The sixth plaintiff, Eugene David A., is a man from Florida who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on December 15, 2008. A CT scan revealed that the filter has stenosis, is tilted with struts perforating through the vena cava wall into the mesenteric muscle.
The seventh plaintiff, Gilbert Joseph F. III, is a man from North Carolina who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on January 12, 2009. There is specific evidence that the filter has tilted and is embedded. His doctors do not recommend an attempt at filter retrieval because “too much time has lapsed since implant, and filter was now embedded.” It would be too dangerous to remove the embedded filter.
The eighth plaintiff, Juana Martin G., is a woman from California who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on January 15, 2009. She underwent a failed attempt to remove the filter but removal did not occur because the filter had tilted and become embedded in the vein.
The ninth plaintiff, Joan L. M., is a woman who was living in Florida when she was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on January 26, 2007. A CT scan revealed that filter struts had perforated through the vena ava wall into the aorta.
The tenth plaintiff, Anna H. M., is a woman from New York who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on November 14, 2006. There is specific evidence that the filter is embedded and perforated through the vena cava wall. Her doctors do not recommend an attempt at retrieving the filter.
The eleventh plaintiff, James Delton S., is a man from Georgia who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on December 9, 2008. There is specific evidence that the filter has tilted and is embedded. His doctors recommended against attempting to remove the filter.
The twelfth plaintiff, Kit Galvin W., is a man from Michigan who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter in 2006. A CT scan revealed that the filter struts have perforated through the vena cava wall. There is also evidence that the filter is embedded and perforated the vein.
The thirteenth plaintiff, Ismael G., is a man from Massachusetts who was implanted with a TrapEase® IVC Filter on May 30, 2009. He has suffered injuries including clotting and occlusion of the IVC Filter, resulting in extremely large blood clots in both of his legs.
The fourteenth plaintiff, Vivian M., is a woman from Pennsylvania who was implanted with an OptEase® IVC Filter on December 2, 2016. The filter was tilted and the retrieval procedure failed. The filter is unable to be retrieved.
Cordis Corporation is accused of negligence, selling a defective medical device, failing to warn about risks, fraudulent misrepresentation, beach of express warranty, and more.
The lawsuit was filed on August 24, 2018 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda — Case No. RG18917035.
There are now over 8,000 other IVC filter lawsuits pending against Cordis Corp. Argon Medical, Rex Medical, Cook Medical, B. Braun, C.R. Bard, and other manufacturers in U.S. courtrooms nationwide.
The plaintiff is represented by attorney Ben C. Martin of The Law Offices of Ben C. Martin in Dallas, Texas.
Editor’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