People's Justice

Who qualifies

IVC filter harm: what a claim check needs

If you think a filter harmed you, ask a lawyer to check the device, care findings and dates. An implant, symptom or past court award does not promise that your claim will be accepted.

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Updated Oct 4, 20269 sources

This may apply to you if

  • These suggestions help you prepare for a claim check. They are not a firm's acceptance rules.
  • For a check, gather the filter brand/model and implant date if known.
  • Describe the harm and later care in your own words.

What the public record says

These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.

Matthew S. Johnson · Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine · First author, PRESERVE prospective filter study

Finding: Among 1429 consenting participants,1421 received filters; the study reported benefits and complications under its stated endpoints, without a randomized no-filter comparison.

Johnson: PRESERVE12-month outcomes, original author abstract (opens in a new tab) · Feb 23, 2023 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The evidence and its limits

54 United States study sites; first-author affiliation Indiana University · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · 2023

PRESERVE: Outcomes at 12 months

Design:
Cohort
Participants:
1429 consenting participants; 1421 received filters.
Finding:
Prespecified safety and effectiveness goals were met, with adverse events also recorded, including a death during attempted retrieval.
Main limitation
Prospective nonrandomized study, varied follow-up and many removed filters; no randomized untreated comparison or lifetime model-specific risk estimate. Original author abstract read; full paper and funding/conflicts not reviewed.

Read the source: PRESERVE: Outcomes at 12 months (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The short answer

Who may qualify for an IVC filter claim check?
If you think a filter harmed you, ask for a legal check. The lawyer needs the device and injury facts. This is not a rule for accepting a claim. [7]
What does not prove a claim or makes it harder?
Having a filter is not proof that it caused harm. Uncertain model or injury details need a check rather than a guessed answer. [9]
What if my filter was removed or belongs to another brand?
Ask for the implant and later care records. Removing a filter does not decide a claim. Bard’s court history does not govern every model or maker. [5]
What records help and how can I get them?
Request the implant note, scans and reports of later care. Keep dates, device details and gaps visible rather than inventing missing facts. [3]

The process

What happens next

  1. 01

    You answer a few questions

    About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.

  2. 02

    A lawyer looks at it

    A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.

  3. 03

    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.

The criteria attorneys check

  1. 01

    These suggestions help you prepare for a claim check. They are not a firm's acceptance rules.

  2. 02

    For a check, gather the filter brand/model and implant date if known.

  3. 03

    Describe the harm and later care in your own words.

  4. 04

    Ask a lawyer which claim, court and time limit apply.

Who may qualify for an IVC filter claim check?

If you think a filter harmed you, ask for a legal check. The lawyer needs the device and injury facts. This is not a rule for accepting a claim.

The Bard order describes claims of tilting, breakage, movement and piercing of the vein. The company disputed those claims. Your care findings and product identity matter more than choosing a symptom from a list.

What does not prove a claim or makes it harder?

Having a filter is not proof that it caused harm. Uncertain model or injury details need a check rather than a guessed answer.

One filter study met its stated safety and effectiveness goals while recording adverse events. It was not a randomized test of every patient's device or a legal finding that all models had a defect.

What if my filter was removed or belongs to another brand?

Ask for the implant and later care records. Removing a filter does not decide a claim. Bard’s court history does not govern every model or maker.

Some filters stay in permanently, and removal can be complex. Do not choose a procedure to meet a legal checklist. Ask the clinician what the device record shows and the lawyer which product and parties would be assessed.

What records help and how can I get them?

Request the implant note, scans and reports of later care. Keep dates, device details and gaps visible rather than inventing missing facts.

The access rule covers designated health-record sets with exceptions. Ask the facility for its request process and whether an authorized representative can help. This preparation list is not a firm's acceptance minimum.

Is there a filing deadline?

A lawyer must check the relevant law and dates. An implant date or old group-court schedule does not supply a national cutoff.

Describe where the procedure and later care occurred and when a possible problem was discussed. Keep earlier case papers or agreements for review. Do not assume a removal automatically starts or ends a legal clock.

What happens when I ask for a check?

Ask who will assess the model, harm and time limit. Before sharing reports, ask which firm receives them and what terms apply.

A medical decision about a filter is separate from an assessment of disputed legal claims. Ask which questions remain after the records are reviewed and who will answer them. No response time or acceptance promise is verified here.

Find out where you stand.

The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.

Register your interest

Sources

  1. ABA Model Rule 1.5: feesABA Model Rule 1.5: fees
  2. Southern District of New York: time limitsSouthern District of New York: time limits · court
  3. 45 CFR 164.524: access to health records45 CFR 164.524: access to health records · regulator
  4. Johnson: PRESERVE12-month outcomes, original author abstractJohnson: PRESERVE12-month outcomes, original author abstract · study
  5. FDA: authorization of laser filter-removal deviceFDA: authorization of laser filter-removal device · regulator
  6. FDA: Option ELITE recallZ-0589-2026FDA: Option ELITE recallZ-0589-2026 · regulator
  7. Campbell: Bard amended final remand/transfer orderDoc22042Campbell: Bard amended final remand/transfer orderDoc22042 · court
  8. JPML: Cook filter transfer orderJPML: Cook filter transfer order · court
  9. Johnson et al.: original PRESERVE abstract and metadata

Checked against 9 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated

How we make money

People's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026