Case guide
Ask your care team whether you still need the filter and what removal would involve. Some filters stay in for life.
Updated Oct 4, 20269 sources
See If You Qualify
Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes
Updated Oct 4, 20269 sources
This may apply to you if
These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.
Bram Zuckerman · US Food and Drug Administration · Director, Office of Cardiovascular Devices, as identified in the2021 release
Finding: The2021 authorization added a retrieval tool for certain embedded filters after earlier removal methods failed; it was not a universal instruction to remove filters.
FDA: authorization of laser filter-removal device (opens in a new tab) · Dec 21, 2021 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
54 United States study sites; first-author affiliation Indiana University · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · 2023
Read the source: PRESERVE: Outcomes at 12 months (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
The process
You answer a few questions
About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.
A lawyer looks at it
A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.
The firm decides and gets in touch
If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.
Ask your care team whether you still need the filter and what removal would involve. Some filters stay in for life. A lawsuit does not decide a procedure for you.
No. Some filters stay in place for life. FDA says the doctor should consider removal when clot risk no longer requires the filter.
The purpose of the device and the type implanted matter. Ask why it was placed and how the care team now weighs that benefit against retrieval risks. This page cannot choose removal, continued use or a personal schedule.
FDA authorized a laser tool to help remove some filters stuck in tissue. Earlier ways must have failed. It is not a plan for all patients.
The 2021 release names Philips CavaClear and describes detaching tissue around a firmly attached filter. It also lists situations where that tool must not be used. Ask the treating team which device and technique fit your findings.
FDA described a study of 265 patients at seven sites. Many removals worked, but some had serious problems. That study concerns a specific procedure.
The agency reported 96% technical success and 3% significant device-related complications. Those percentages concern laser-assisted removal, not the chance your implanted device will fail. The underlying full study is not reviewed here.
No. One person died in an attempt to remove a filter in PRESERVE. A group result cannot tell you the risks of your own care.
The prospective study enrolled 1429 consenting people, with 1421 filters placed. Many devices were removed, and follow-up differed. Ask the clinician to explain the actual risks and options for your device rather than using one study result as consent advice.
Bring the implant note, device details and later scans. Ask for missing covered records and keep any earlier retrieval report.
Organize the reports by the question you want answered: ongoing clot risk, filter position or an earlier retrieval attempt. Covered access has exceptions. A missing card is a reason to request records rather than guess a model.
Ask a lawyer about the device, harm and applicable time limit. Do not choose removal just to try to qualify for a lawsuit.
The Bard order describes disputed injury claims, not a procedure rule for all filter patients. Ask whether your actual care and case records support a legal theory while the care team makes the clinical assessment.
The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.
Register your interestChecked against 9 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated
How we make moneyPeople's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026