null - IVC Filter Lawsuit | People's Justice

Preparing your case review…

Written By

People's Justice Legal Research Team

As of February 2026, Bard MDL 2641 in the District of Arizona continues to process claims under a confidential global settlement framework established approximately in 2022 to 2023. Becton Dickinson — Bard's parent company — has committed to resolving eligible claims through a tiered settlement grid administered by the MDL Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. Attorneys can still register new Bard IVC filter clients into the settlement program. The MDL remains technically open for claims not covered by the global framework.

Cook MDL 2570 in the Southern District of Indiana presents a different picture. Cook Medical has not agreed to a global settlement as of early 2026. Approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cases remain active in the Cook MDL, proceeding under individual case management orders. Cook's posture — driven by its status as a private company not subject to public shareholder pressure — means Cook plaintiffs face a realistic prospect of trial. State court clusters in California, Texas, New Jersey, and New York also contain Cook IVC filter cases proceeding outside the MDL.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

An IVC (inferior vena cava) filter is a small metal device placed inside the large vein that returns blood from your lower body to your heart. It is designed to trap blood clots and prevent them from traveling to your lungs (pulmonary embolism). Filters are typically implanted in patients who cannot safely take blood-thinning medications — for example, after surgery or trauma. Retrievable filters were marketed as temporary devices meant to be removed once the clot risk passed, but millions were left in patients long-term.

Both Bard and Cook manufactured retrievable IVC filters that fractured — their metal struts broke off and migrated through the bloodstream. Fractured struts have been found in patients' hearts, lungs, kidneys, and aortas. Bard's Recovery and G2 filters showed extremely high fracture rates in post-market studies. Cook's Celect filter showed high rates of caval penetration — the filter piercing the vena cava wall. Internal documents revealed that both manufacturers knew about these defects but did not adequately disclose them to doctors or patients.

IVC filter fractures are often asymptomatic — you may have no symptoms at all while struts are migrating. Warning signs include unexplained back or abdominal pain, chest pain or palpitations, shortness of breath, or new leg swelling. The only reliable way to determine if your filter has fractured is imaging — typically a CT scan, plain abdominal X-ray, or fluoroscopy. If you have an IVC filter and have not had recent follow-up imaging, contact both your doctor and a lawyer.

No formal recall was ever issued for any IVC filter — this is one of the most significant regulatory gaps in modern medical device law. The FDA issued safety communications in 2010 and 2014 recommending retrieval of retrievable filters as soon as clinically feasible, and ordered post-market studies (522 studies) that confirmed high fracture and perforation rates. But the FDA stopped short of requiring a mandatory recall. The absence of a recall does not mean the devices were safe — the litigation record establishes widespread design defects.

You may qualify if you: (1) had a Bard or Cook IVC filter implanted (including Recovery, G2, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian, Denali, Günther Tulip, or Celect models); (2) experienced a documented complication such as fracture, strut migration, cardiac injury, organ perforation, pulmonary embolism, DVT, or required a difficult removal procedure; and (3) were injured within the applicable statute of limitations or enrolled in an MDL before the deadline. Contact us for a free case evaluation — our attorneys can review your medical records at no cost.

Settlement values depend on injury severity, filter model, surgical intervention required, age, and evidence quality. Under Bard's global settlement program, minor fracture cases without migration may settle in the $25,000 to $100,000 range; fractures requiring surgical removal may reach $150,000 to $400,000; cardiac perforation or death cases may exceed $400,000 to $750,000. Bellwether trial verdicts include Hyde v. Bard ($3.6M), Tinlin v. Bard ($1.59M), and Hill v. Cook Medical ($460,000). Cook cases resolve individually with no global settlement grid.

The deadline varies by state — most states have a 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, running from the date of injury or discovery of the injury. Because IVC filter fractures are often discovered years after implantation, courts broadly apply the discovery rule: the clock starts when you knew or should have known your filter failed. Participating in Bard MDL 2641 or Cook MDL 2570 through a registered short-form complaint tolls your individual state statute. Do not wait — contact an attorney immediately if you believe your filter has failed.

MDL 2641 consolidates cases against C.R. Bard (now Becton Dickinson) in the District of Arizona. Bard has entered a confidential global settlement framework — most cases are resolving under a tiered settlement grid. MDL 2570 consolidates cases against Cook Medical in the Southern District of Indiana. Cook has not reached a global settlement as of early 2026; cases proceed toward individual resolution or trial. If you had a Bard filter, your case will likely resolve under the settlement program. If you had a Cook filter, your case may go to trial.

It depends on your specific situation. Retrieval is most successful when performed within the recommended retrieval window (typically within 6 months of implantation), but experienced interventional radiologists have successfully retrieved filters implanted for years. Struts that have migrated or embedded in vessel walls may make standard retrieval impossible or extremely high risk, requiring open or hybrid surgical approaches. You should consult an interventional radiologist who specializes in complex IVC filter retrieval. Even if your filter cannot be removed, you may still have a valid legal claim.

No — IVC filter cases are not class action lawsuits. They are individual personal injury claims consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial coordination. Each plaintiff has their own case, their own injuries, and their own settlement value. MDL is not a class action: you retain your individual right to trial if you do not accept a settlement. This matters significantly — your payout is determined by your specific injuries, not averaged across thousands of plaintiffs.

Key evidence includes: (1) medical records documenting IVC filter implantation (including the device model and lot number); (2) imaging studies showing fracture, migration, or perforation (CT scan, X-ray, MRI); (3) medical records of any treatment for filter-related complications; (4) operative reports if surgical removal was attempted; and (5) records of any cardiac intervention if struts reached the heart. Your attorney will help gather these records — you do not need to collect them yourself before calling.

No. We handle IVC filter cases on a contingency fee basis — you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you. There are no upfront fees, no case evaluation fees, and no out-of-pocket costs. If we win or settle your case, our fee is a percentage of the recovery (typically 33 to 40 percent). If we do not recover, you owe nothing. Call today for a free, confidential case review.

IVC Filter Lawsuit

Retrievable IVC filters manufactured by C.R. Bard and Cook Medical have failed at alarming rates — fracturing, migrating to the heart, and perforating organs. Two federal MDLs are actively resolving thousands of claims. Bard has entered a confidential global settlement program; Cook cases proceed individually. Free consultations available.

View full case overview

Related Pages

IVC Filter Lawsuit