– Updated on February 15, 2026
Judge Robert C. Jones ruled in favor of public interest after an IVC implant lawsuit was settled only six days after the trial had started. Judge Jones denied IVC filter manufacturer C.R. Bard’s request to seal certain trial exhibits and portions of the trial transcript.
Judge Jones noted that a court may “make any order which justice requires to protect the party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense upon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought.” Further, Judge Jones stated “the mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination or exposure to further litigation will not without more, compel the court to seal its records.” The Motion to Seal filed by C.R. Bard’s attorneys was denied based on the reasons for sealing do not outweigh the public’s interest.
This means that the evidence presented and trial transcripts from this case can be used by Attorney Goldwater and his team as they move forward in obtaining compensation for their clients who have been injured by IVC filters.
If you or a loved one have had an IVC filter implanted, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact the Goldwater Law Firm today to see if you can file a claim in the IVC filter lawsuit.
Read more:
Considering a Lawsuit Over an IVC Filter?
Indiana Woman Wins $3M Settlement In Cook IVC Filter Lawsuit
On Feb. 5, 2019, a federal jury in Indiana awarded Tonya Brand $3 million in damages for the medical complications she suffered after receiving a Celect IVC filter manufactured by Cook Medical.
This verdict marks the first time a jury has found the company’s IVC filters to be defectively designed. The verdict was delivered in the third bellwether trial in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).
IVC filters are a widely used medical device that is inserted into the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body. These small metallic devices are intended to prevent blood clots from traveling to the heart or lungs; however, Brand and other claimants allege that the device caused a host of serious injuries.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries as a result of a blood clot filter implant, it’s important to have an experienced IVC filter attorney review your case to determine if you are able to take legal action against the manufacturer. Keep reading for more information on the potential health risks and the current litigation surrounding blood clot filters.
The Facts of Tonya Brand’s Case
In the most recent trial, Brand claimed that she pulled a piece of her Cook IVC filter out of her thigh in 2011 after it broke and deteriorated. Furthermore, pieces of the device still remain in her body and are impossible to safely remove.
Brand sued Cook Medical in 2014 for stricter liability and negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, negligent manufacturing, negligence per se, breach of warranty, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
After hearing the facts of Brand’s case, the jury ruled that the dangerous and defective design of Cook’s Celect IVC filter was the cause of her injuries. While she was granted $3 million in compensatory damages, the jury did not award further punitive damages against Cook Medical.
Allegations Against Manufacturers
Similar to Brand’s case, many suits against IVC filter manufacturers allege that the device broke and caused severe pain and medical issues. Additionally, plaintiffs argue that the companies:
- Designed, manufactured, and marketed a defective medical device.
- Pushed a product to market despite known safety concerns.
- Failed to warn consumers about the potential dangers and side effects.
- Concealed knowledge of the device’s perforation issues.
Problems With Device Removal
Many blood clot filters are designed to be removed after the patient has been medically cleared. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that the filter should be removed between one to two months after it is implanted unless the risk of pulmonary embolism is still present.
However, patients have reported difficulties removing the device due to the following complications:
- Migration of the device to other parts of the body.
- Breakage with pieces of the device piercing the blood vessel, intestines, aorta, or other vital organs.
- Abnormal positioning of the device.
Although Cook and other manufacturers marketed their IVC filters as ‘retrievable,’ the broken metal pieces can damage organs or become embedded in the inferior vena cava, making it impossible to remove without major surgery.
Current IVC Filter Litigation
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed nationwide in state and federal courts, many of which target the manufacturers Cook Medical and C.R. Bard. These are the specific devices primarily named in the suits:
- Bard Recovery
- Bard G2 and G2 Express
- Cook Celect
- Cook Günther Tulip
Many individuals who suffered injuries from one of these devices filed lawsuits against the manufacturers to pursue compensation for damages. After the number of suits continued to increase, the actions were transferred to an MDL.
MDLs consolidate similar cases but allow plaintiffs to maintain individual lawsuits. MDLs have formed in both Indiana (MDL No. 2570 IN RE: Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation) and Arizona (IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation) federal courts regarding IVC filters.
Currently, there are more than 5,000 lawsuits pending against Cook Medical in the Indiana MDL.
Plaintiffs Seek $5 Million in Bard IVC Filter Case
There’s been an update to the multi-district litigation IVC filter lawsuits filed in court against C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. Bard manufactures IVC filters that are implanted into patients to lessen the likelihood of strokes, heart attacks, and pulmonary embolisms caused by blood clots. The tiny metal filter is implanted into the vein of the patients to literally catch blood clots that move through the veins.
Unfortunately, many patients have been hurt by the very devices that were designed to save them. More than 600 lawsuits against Bard have been filed alleging that their IVC filters are dangerous. All of the cases were consolidated in federal court in Arizona in August of 2015.
Seeking Class Action Status
In May 2016 a new lawsuit joined the multi-district litigation. This particular case petitioned the court to certify the pending lawsuits as a class action lawsuit so that thousands of people who’ve been injured by IVC filters manufactured by Bard can be compensated. The total damages being sought for all lawsuits combined exceeds $5 million.
Plaintiffs Allege Bad Marketing of a Dangerous Product
Lawsuits filed by IVC filter lawyers on behalf of clients in Florida, Colorado, Arizona, West Virginia, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois. The main allegation is that Bard used bad marketing tactics to continue to push their dangerous device into the hands of medical professionals.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Bard continued bad marketing practices of IVC filters “despite negative clinical data.” According to an NBC investigation, Bard may have known about the risks associated with the IVC filters and continued to push for FDA clearance. Bard knew about problems associated with the filter, including 27 deaths and more than 300 other injuries. Their internal report from 2004 stated that the devices tended to migrate and fracture. Further studies of Bard’s Recovery filter broke or fractured about 25% of the time. Despite the knowledge that device was dangerous, Bard continued to market the IVC filter.
An updated Bard filter was released but is still fracturing and injuring and killing patients. In May 2014, the FDA issued another warning about IVC filters that stated the devices should be removed in no more than two months after they’ve been implanted. After 60 days, the risk of a pulmonary embolism has generally passed.
Plaintiffs Seeking Medical Care
Plaintiffs of IVC filter lawsuits are seeking more than $5 million in damages and asking for continued medical care because of the higher risk of death or severe injury from Bard IVC filters than they would have if Bard would have produced an IVC filter without this dangerous defect.
Companies That Put Profits Before Safety Should Be Held Liable
If your IVC filter implant broke, migrated, deteriorated, or malfunctioned in any way that caused you to become injured, you may be eligible to receive compensation. However, filing a lawsuit against deep-pocketed medical device companies, such as Cook Medical and C.R. Bard, can be intimidating and difficult.
That’s why it’s in your best interest to contact a knowledgeable IVC filter attorney who isn’t afraid to take on these corporate defendants. At the Goldwater Law Firm, we are passionate about holding companies that put profits before the safety of their consumers legally and financially responsible.
Please don’t hesitate to contact us today a free consultation if you believe your injuries were due to a defective blood clot filter.
Related Posts
The Goldwater Law Firm is on mission to help as many people as possible with the fierce, compassionate legal aid only The Gold Standard of Injury Law can offer. If you suffered serious side effects or were diagnosed with an illness because of a defective drug or product, or if you were injured in an accident that wasn’t your fault, Attorney Bob Goldwater and the Goldwater Law Firm is ready to serve as your compassionate partner in the fight to seek the compensation and justice you deserve.
Share this post:
