Straight answers to the questions injured people and their families ask us most — from how attorneys get paid to what happens in an IVC filter lawsuit.
Experience. Nothing can replace experience when it comes to giving you the valuable representation you deserve.
Another thing to look for is the size of the firm – do they have enough support staff to follow up on administrative work? Is there more than one litigating attorney?
Many times, after the office is closed to the general public, Attorney Robert J. Fenstersheib and his associate attorneys have sat and brain-stormed well into the night, shooting ideas back and forth and having mock trials, making sure that every possible event that may come up in a claim’s litigation is not only anticipated but addressed prior to trial.
Make sure the firm you retain to represent you is large enough to have multiple people reviewing your case – multiple heads are always better than one.
If you need answers to More Questions in a Personal Injury Case, call the Fenstersheib Law Group, P.A., now for a FREE initial consultation at 833-TellFLG (833-835-5354) and get the information and legal answers you’re seeking.
At the Fenstersheib Law Group, P.A., we don’t take a fee unless you make a recovery. This is called a contingency fee – our charging you a fee is “contingent” upon you receiving a settlement. So if your claim does not settle, you walk away and owe us nothing for our services.
If your claim does settle, we will take our fee directly out of the settlement itself, and the details will be clearly listed on your settlement statement, along with the case costs. Should you decide to retain our firm, the fee that you will owe our firm for representation upon settlement of your claim is clearly listed in the retainer agreement.
One thing people often neglect, which may inadvertently hamper their claim, is telling their attorney all the details of the incident, or all the details about a prior injury, because they feel the specific details are unimportant or unrelated.
Attorney Robert Fenstersheib always tells his clients, “You can Tell Robert anything.” So, make sure to definitely tell us everything, and let us decide which details are important to your case or not – that’s what we’re here for!
It is vital that you tell us every detail about your accident, and any prior accidents or prior injuries. Why? Because if we know about any prior accidents/injuries we can address those issues before they actually become a problem.
If we DO NOT know about it, and the defense does know, that information will give them the upper hand. That’s why you must tell us everything about your medical past and the details of your accident.
Another commonly left-out detail is that sometimes people are at work when they have an accident. This is crucial, as it can define whether or not you have a workers’ compensation claim, a negligence claim, or both. Therefore, it is very important to let us know if you were working when your accident happened.
Most people’s main concern is about their health, and if their pain will ever go away. The second most common concern is how long will it take a claim to reach its conclusion.
“I completely understand and empathize with my clients about their health concerns; however, I do not have medical training and cannot give medical advice,” explains Attorney Robert Fenstersheib. “These questions must be directed to your treating physician and documented in the records attached to your claim.”
How long does it take for a claim to come to its conclusion? There is no set answer to this question because each claim is unique and individual. Some factors that impact the length of a claim will be the extent of the injury, the amount of medical care needed, and whether or not the claim goes into litigation and/or trial.
Many claims can settle within a year’s time, and many claims will take longer depending on the incident, the establishment of negligence, and the medical treatment involved.
In-depth guides to common questions after an accident in Florida.
Answers about inferior vena cava (IVC) filter injuries and lawsuits. For background, see our IVC filter lawsuit guide.
We fit all the necessary requirements for the type of law firm that you want handling your claim. In addition, we are particular about the types of litigation that we handle and only take on cases that we believe have a strong foundation. We do not treat our clients like they are just a number and limit the amount of clients that we take so we can retain a personal one-on-one relationship with each one. We value our clients and aim to always make sure to walk them through the process and hold their hands every step of the way. In addition, we have had years of experience with federal MDL mass tort litigation, with a number of large, successful verdicts.
Primarily, you want a law firm that will work on a contingency basis, has experience with product liability claims and has worked on federal MDL mass tort litigation cases.
No, there is no formal claims office for IVC filters. The manufacturers are not admitting liability as of now and we will have to sue them for defective devices. An attorney is needed to file a lawsuit and prove causation between your IVC filter and any injuries you may have incurred.
If you should die before your claim is resolved, we can assist your next of kin (spouse/children) to open probate on your estate. The estate can continue with the claim and receive any award, if such is determined. To make the process easier, we recommend that you have a will to determine who should be the executor of the estate and how your estate should be divided.
If a patient died as a result of a complication from an IVC filter, there might be a wrongful death claim. Each state has a different statute of limitations for wrongful death, but most must occur within two years of the patient’s death. Generally the case is brought by the next of kin, usually the spouse or children. If there was no probate done, we can work with the family to do the necessary paperwork. We would need to review the medical records and specifics of the case to determine if we could bring a wrongful death claim.
The timeline for this type of litigation varies greatly. Some cases can resolve in a year, while others can last for over ten years. In general, these cases usually take about five to seven years to resolve.
With our firm, no decision is made without your participation. If a settlement is offered, we will advise you on how that settlement was determined and any pros or cons to accepting the offer.
Most MDL cases will settle out of court. There are generally some bellwether trials to determine liability and let both plaintiffs & defendants see how a trial would progress, but they often lead to settlements out of court. There is sometimes a formal claims office formed.
It will take up a great amount of time on the law firm’s part, but not of yours. In general, most of what is required of you for the litigation claim is filling out some paperwork and telephone conferences. We will walk you through the process and advise what is needed of you.
We would recommend that you would only use a firm that works on a contingency basis, as we do. That means that the firm only gets paid if you receive an award/settlement and would be paid out of that award. The law firm would front any of the litigation costs and fees.
This litigation is in the early stages, so we do not know yet all the challenges that we will face. However, although the defendants have not yet done so, we anticipate that the manufacturers will attempt to place blame on the implanting surgeon.
You will need to hire a product liability law firm to represent you in this matter. As this is federal litigation, you do not need a law firm in the same state as which you live. Time is of the essence, so you will need to contact them to sign the necessary paperwork. They will need the information for your implant, as well as any associated complications or procedures you may have had. If you have any of your medical records, it will expedite the process. However, the law firm can order any necessary records on your behalf.
Yes. There is a strong risk of future complication with the implant. If you are not sure the status or location of your IVC filter, a CT scan or MRI can show if your IVC filter is in any location that it should not be. Call our office if you are concerned about future complications and how it could impact your future case.
In most cases, yes. However, we would need to review the specifics of the case to determine its viability.
The statute of limitations is different for each claim, based mainly on state of residence, state of implant (if different) and when the injury occurred. Therefore, we urge you to contact us immediately so we can ensure to bring your claim in a timely fashion.
A number of factors influence the compensation for these claims, including, but not limited to, type of IVC filter, length of time of implant, severity of injury, age and cardiac health prior to implant.
We cannot give any estimation of valuation for these cases. In addition, each claim will be different based upon the patient, the severity of their injuries and the state in which they live.
This is strictly a product liability and NOT a medical malpractice claim, so we will not be suing any of the medical providers involved in the implantation or resultant injuries. We will solely be going after the manufacturers of these implants, namely Cook and Bard.
You may not know yet. If your doctor has informed you that your IVC filter or any part of the filter has moved/migrated, please contact us immediately. Our law firm will review records to determine causation and that responsibility is not placed on you.
Any patient that has a Bard or Cook IVC filter implanted 2002 or later. While there are 11 companies that manufacture IVC filters, Bard & Cook have over 80% of the market so most filters will belong to either company. Call our office to see if there are claims against other manufacturers. Patients were supposed to receive an implant card after surgery, but not all patients may have them.
Claimants who received Bard IVC filters filed three class-action lawsuits against Bard in Florida, Pennsylvania and California courts. The lawsuits argue plaintiffs with Bard Recovery, G2 and G2 Express filters that had not fractured or migrated must receive medical monitoring because of Bard’s negligence, misrepresentation and concealment of data. The plaintiffs claim everyone who had one of the devices implanted in them make up a class which should be compensated for medical monitoring expenses. Courts have not approved the formation of a class yet. Plaintiffs filed the first lawsuits against Bard in California and Pennsylvania state courts in 2012. The majority of cases are mass tort claims – individual lawsuits filed in federal MDL courts. In October 2014, the US Judicial Panel on MDL consolidated lawsuits against Cook from 11 districts into an MDL in the Southern District of Indiana. In August 2015, the US Judicial Panel on MDL consolidated lawsuits against C.R. Bard to the US District Court – District of Arizona.
Patients may bring product liability (defective device) claims, negligence claims, as well as wrongful death claims, if applicable.
There were numerous studies that came out after the release of these implants that demonstrated failures and did not prove the efficacy of the products. In 2010, the U.S. FDA announced a safety alert regarding retrievable IVC filters. The FDA received 921 reports of adverse events from 2005-2010.
Plaintiffs filed the first lawsuits against Bard in California and Pennsylvania state courts in 2012. In October 2014, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) consolidated lawsuits against Cook from 11 districts to an MDL in the Southern District of Indiana. The number of lawsuits against Cook has dramatically increased. The U.S. Judicial Panel on MDL consolidated lawsuits against Bard to the U.S. District Court District of Arizona in August 2015. Thousands of lawsuits are pending in the MDL.
Lisa Davis sued Bard after a G2 filter implanted in 2006 fractured and migrated to her heart in 2008, causing ongoing heart issues. Davis declined to have open heart surgery to remove the fragment and must take blood thinners for the rest of her life. She claims Bard failed to warn her physician of the G2’s risks and misrepresented the device as safe. She sued for physical trauma, anxiety and impaired ability to earn wages.
Although the filters were designed to prevent life-threatening pulmonary embolisms (PEs) – blood clots in the lungs –, they can have life-threatening side effects, including but not limited to organ perforations, embolisms and death. In a report released in 2010, the FDA received more than 900 reports of adverse events associated with IVC filters.
In 2010, the FDA warned the retrievable filters posed risks of filter fracture, device migration and organ perforation and should be removed as soon as the patient’s risk for blood clots subsided. The FDA updated safety communication in 2014, stating most devices should be removed between the 29th and 54th day after implantation. But the warning signs came too late for some.
IVC filters are associated with potential risks, like damaging veins and failing to stop blood clots from bypassing the device. Any procedure involving the placement of a catheter inside a blood vessel carries certain risks. Those risks include damage to the blood vessel, bruising or bleeding at the puncture site, infection and allergic reaction. The IVC filter could migrate, penetrate through the vein, break loose or become scarred to the vein and cannot be removed.
The device is tailored towards patients with certain medical conditions, so there is not an age or gender that more commonly uses the implant.
The device was introduced in 1979 and its use has increased continuously through the years. The devices that are part of the litigation that our firm is working on were implanted in 2002 and later.
The devices are most common with trauma patients, bariatric patients and orthopedic surgeries. The annual implantation of these devices has grown from 49,000 in 2004 to over 260,000 by 2012.
Surgeons implant retrievable inferior vena cava filters (IVCs) in the veins of patients who are unable to take anticoagulants (blood thinners) in order to prevent blood clots from moving to the lungs. IVCs catch the clots in the blood stream and, over time, the clots dissipate. They are small, metal devices that resemble a metal cage and are surgically inserted into a patient’s vein. There are two types of IVC filters: permanent and optional/retrievable filters. Retrievable filters provide short-term protection. They’re designed to be removed from a patient’s body when there is no longer a risk for pulmonary embolism (PE). Unfortunately, they are not always able to be retrieved and can cause severe medical complications.
Device migration is one of the severe complications that can arise from an IVC filter implantation. In fact, it was the top complaint reported to the FDA between the years of 2005 and 2010. There are reports of IVC filters migrating from the inferior vena cava to the heart and lungs. The filters also commonly migrate throughout other areas of the body, including the stomach and bowels. Once the filter or fragments of the filter has migrated from its original location, there is a greater risk of the object embedding into veins, arteries, or other organs. If the filter migrates into the lungs or heart, painful and severe effects may present, such as;
Here are some of the severe complications that have been reported in association with IVC filter placement:
Please keep in mind that this list does not necessarily include all problems that an injured patient may suffer as a result of a faulty IVC filter. As every BODY is different, not all patients experience the same associated problems.
It is currently recommended that retrievable IVC filters be removed four to six weeks after placement or after the risk of pulmonary embolism (“PE”) has subsided. On August 9, 2010, the FDA released a warning regarding leaving IVC filters in place for longer than recommended. The warning alerted physicians that IVC filters should only be implanted as a short-term “fix” to patients who were at high-risk for pulmonary embolisms. The filters are not meant to be left in the body long-term. If they are left in place longer than recommended, the filter has the potential to attach itself to the vena cava wall. This is known as filter embedment. In these cases, it is generally unsafe to remove the filter, which can cause additional complications to arise.
IVC filter removal can be more difficult than its placement, especially if the filter has migrated from its initial implantation location.
If the filter hasn’t moved, the physician will retrieve the filter in almost the same way that he/she placed the filter. First, the physician will create a small incision in the neck or groin in order to access the vena cava. Then, the physician will insert a contrast dye and take x-ray images to properly visualize the filter, making sure it can be removed safely. Finally, the physician will use a snare to grab the hook, located at the top of the filter, in order to remove it from the body.
When an IVC filter migrates from its original location, removal becomes riskier. In some migration cases, the IVC filter cannot be removed at all, because the filter migrated to a place in the body that was unsafe to operate around, such as the heart or lungs.
After receiving 921 reports of adverse events occurring after receiving the IVC filter implantation since 2005, the FDA issued a warning to doctors in 2010. The FDA put out a formal recommendation that the retrievable filters should be removed once they were no longer necessary. More recently in 2014, the agency recommended that the filters be removed as soon as the patient’s risk of PE was gone.
There has only been one randomized and controlled study evaluating IVC filter safety, which was conducted in 1998. Of the 400 patients who participated in the study, 35% of the participants with filters developed DVT. It was also found that the filter implantation did not improve patient survival.
Anywhere from 9-25% of IVC filters fracture. However, some IVC filter devices hold a higher fracture risks than others. In a study conducted in 2010, it was found that 12% (or 6 out of 52 patients), of Bard G2 filters fractured, compared with 25% of Bard Recovery filters that broke (or 7 out of 28 patients). Arguably little research has been done on IVC filters, and it is expected that with more research conducted, there will be more evidence of fracture occurrence.
IVC filters are supposed to prevent blood clots from traveling to your lungs and other parts of your body. IVC filter implantation is often given to patients who have been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis, which makes blood clots form in the pelvis and legs of the affected individual. While an IVC filter can assist in stopping the clots from traveling elsewhere in the body, it is not a perfected process or product. Unfortunately, many recipients of the IVC filter have suffered extreme physical harm.
Anyone suffering damages as a result of receiving a defective IVC filter in the United States is entitled to explore their options. If you or a loved one is suffering a serious health consequence of injury due to a dangerous IVC filter, compensation may be available to cover your medical bills, pain and suffering, and other types of damages incurred.
In most of the IVC filter lawsuits, the manufacturers C.R. Bard and Cook Medical are listed. Federally consolidated litigations, formally known as “multi-district litigations” (or MDLs), have been formed against these manufacturers. These are the top five products that are named in most of the IVC filter litigation cases:
Every case is different. Tell us what happened and we’ll explain your options — free, with no obligation, and no fee unless we win.
520 W Hallandale Beach Blvd, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 · 2679 Main St, Littleton, CO 80120
