Latest Updates on IVC Filter Lawsuits: Understanding the Risks and Legal Developments

September 1, 2023

First introduced in 1979, Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters are devices used to prevent blood clots from reaching the lungs. The filters are commonly used in patients who are at risk of pulmonary embolism (a blockage), especially those who cannot take blood-thinning medications. The filter is placed in the Inferior Vena Cava, a large vein in the abdomen that returns blood from the lower body to the heart. While these filters are typically effective in stopping blood clots, they can also lead to hazardous side effects like vein perforation, filter migration, fracture, and embolization. 


This article provides the latest updates on IVC filter lawsuits, highlighting the associated risks and significant legal developments. So, if you've suffered from any of the following IVC filter-related complications, you may be entitled to compensation:

  • IVC filter side effects include chest pain, confusion, heart rhythm problems, hypotension, lightheadedness, nausea, neck pain, shortness of breath, hemorrhaging, and internal bleeding.
  • The FDA has identified several unreasonable risks associated with IVC filters, including device fracture, migration, and perforation of organs.
  • Perforation, where a part of the filter migrates through the wall of the IVC, is a common issue.
  • Surgical removal of certain IVC filters can result in high morbidity and mortality rates.
  • Leaving IVC filters in can lead to severe and potentially deadly injuries such as hemorrhage, pulmonary embolism, and stroke.


Recent Verdicts and Legal Progressions:

  • The Seventh Circuit upheld a $3.3 million verdict in favor of Natalie Johnson in an IVC filter lawsuit against C.R. Bard.
  • A judge in Montana refused to dismiss an IVC lawsuit against Bard, allowing a design defect claim to go to trial.
  • There have been three plaintiffs' verdicts in recent years, including a $3.3 million verdict for a woman with a Bard Meridian IVC Filter.
  • A jury awarded $386,250 in a fractured filter case against C.R. Bard.
  • Bard was found negligent in causing their G2 IVC filter to fracture, resulting in a $3.6 million jury award.
  • Cook Celect was ordered to pay $1.2 million in a lawsuit where they failed to warn about the risks of their IVC filter.
  • Cook Medical lost a lawsuit where a woman suffered a cardiac injury from their defective IVC filter.


IVC filter lawsuits continue to unfold, with significant legal developments and verdicts shedding light on the risks associated with these devices. Patients who have experienced complications from IVC filters are encouraged to seek legal counsel and understand their rights.


Here at Jason J. Joy & Associates, we understand how difficult it can be when dealing with medical complications caused by an IVC filter, and we are committed to helping our clients receive justice for their suffering. Our team has extensive experience handling these types of cases and will work tirelessly on your behalf to ensure that you receive fair compensation for your injuries and losses.


While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.


Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.