The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search feed instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content
| Saunders and Walker


With over 1,500 Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filter lawsuits filed, most of the attention has been focused on two of the largest IVC filter manufacturers – C.R. Bard and Cook Medical. But it is important to remember that other smaller manufacturers have been responsible for producing these dangerous medical devices. Almost one in ten IVC lawsuits are filed against Cordis Corporation, makers of OptEase and TrapEase IVC filters. Patients in these lawsuits allege that they experienced life-threatening injuries after being implanted with Cordis filters.


IVC filters are spider-like device that are inserted into the vena cava and designed to capture and trap blood clots passing through the artery and prevent them from reaching the lung. The filters were designed to be temporary and according to the FDA, should be removed within 29 and 54 days of implantation. The problem has been that most are not removed in that time frame and the risk of fracture, tilting, and migration increases the longer they remain implanted. According to the FDA, the resulting adverse effects can involve complications such as:


  • Filter fracture
  • Embolization of broken components
  • Migration and tilt
  • Organ damage (heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.)
  • Perforation of the vena cava
  • Internal bleeding
  • Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
  • Filter is clogged with blood clots
  • Filter or Broken pieces can’t be removed


Cordis filters have fallen under extensive scrutiny. A limited 2011 study by Japanese researchers found that 10 out of 20 patients implanted with the Cordis TrapEase IVC filters had a fractured strut within 50 months of implantation. Then in 2011 Cordis was forced to issue a Class 1 recall for almost 33,000 OptEase IVC filters due to a labeling error that could cause the filter to be implanted backwards and result in it migrating towards the heart.


Currently 140 plaintiffs have file product liability and breach of warranty claims against Cordis and I expect the number of lawsuits to continue to grow. An estimated 30,000 IVC filters have been implanted in the last 30 years. Patients need to be acutely aware of the high failure rates associated with these devices. Along with the Cordis TrapEase and OptEase, other IVC filters being named in lawsuits areCook Celect Filter, Cook Gunther Tulip Filter, Bard Recovery Filter,Bard G2 Filter and Bard G2 Express Filter.


At Saunders & Walker we have a successful history of representing victims harmed by dangerous medical products like IVC filters. If you suspect you or a loved one has been injured or suffered after having an IVC filter implanted, you may be owed money for any combination of pain and suffering, medical bills, lost wages, or in the case of a loved one’s death – funeral expenses. Please contact us for a free legal consultation. These cases are time-sensitive and it is crucial that you act as soon as possible to determine if you are eligible for compensation




One Comment

  1. Gravatar for Joe

    I had the cordis filter inserted in 2002 o had not migration or movement according to xray can i get any monetary damage ?

Comments are closed.