Of the 524 firms on our 92 city lists in the United States, Schochor, Staton, Goldberg, and Cardea, P.A. scores highest on malpractice focus, published results, client reviews and experience, followed by Hastings Law Firm and The Law Offices of Dr. Michael M. Wilson MD, JD & Associates. Each firm keeps its best score from the cities it serves; open a city for its full list.
Best Ivc Filters Lawyers in the United States
Feature your firm first on this page
This spot goes to one firm for a year. It's shown first, above everyone below, and labeled Featured.
4.8181 Google reviewsRated 4.8 out of 5 on Google from 181 reviews
Best for: Birth injury and hospital negligence
In its published cases, Schochor, Staton, Goldberg, and Cardea, P.A. describes oxygen deprivation during delivery and Erb’s palsy; it also publishes verdicts involving deaths after hospital care.
We order firms by how much of their work is medical malpractice, the results they publish, what their clients say, their experience, their standing with the regulator and the recognition they have earned, all from public records and the firms' own sites. How lists are made
4.6102 Google reviewsRated 4.6 out of 5 on Google from 102 reviews
Best for: Misdiagnosis and surgical injury claims
Among Hastings Law Firm's published results are a $19,750,000 failure-to-diagnose settlement and a $10,700,000 negligent-prescribing jury verdict. Because it focuses on malpractice and publishes those results, it tops this list.
We order firms by how much of their work is medical malpractice, the results they publish, what their clients say, their experience, their standing with the regulator and the recognition they have earned, all from public records and the firms' own sites. How lists are made
5.0216 Google reviewsRated 5.0 out of 5 on Google from 216 reviews
Best for: Delayed diagnosis and anesthesia injuries
An alleged delayed diagnosis of HSV encephalitis is behind the $11.65 million result published by The Law Offices of Dr. Michael M. Wilson MD, JD & Associates. For negligent anesthesia care, it reports another result of $8 million.
We order firms by how much of their work is medical malpractice, the results they publish, what their clients say, their experience, their standing with the regulator and the recognition they have earned, all from public records and the firms' own sites. How lists are made
4.724 Google reviewsRated 4.7 out of 5 on Google from 24 reviews
Best for: Misdiagnosis and surgical injury claims
A $12 million misdiagnosis result stands out among the cases published by The Law Offices of Cardaro & Peek, LLC. For negligent surgery, it lists a $7.9 million result; for breast cancer misdiagnosis, it lists $7.1 million.
We order firms by how much of their work is medical malpractice, the results they publish, what their clients say, their experience, their standing with the regulator and the recognition they have earned, all from public records and the firms' own sites. How lists are made
4.7226 Google reviewsRated 4.7 out of 5 on Google from 226 reviews
Best for: Birth injury and delayed diagnosis
Among Wapner Newman Attorneys At Law's listed results are $8.4 million for brain injury after a delayed diagnosis and $7 million for birth trauma causing brain damage.
We order firms by how much of their work is medical malpractice, the results they publish, what their clients say, their experience, their standing with the regulator and the recognition they have earned, all from public records and the firms' own sites. How lists are made
Ivc filters lawyers by state
The rules change from one state to the next, so the lawyers near you are the ones to call.
If an IVC filter fractured or moved, or it perforated the vein, a legal review may be worth considering. What caused it matters. To work out the cause, the lawyer must distinguish problems with the device or warnings from medical care that fell short, without assuming that appropriate treatment would have prevented the complication. Start by gathering the implant record, then collect the medical findings that explain what went wrong.
A complication alone doesn't establish malpractice. If someone sued the same manufacturer, that doesn't show there was a defect in your own filter. The lawyer needs to know which device you have before reviewing it alongside the treatment you received.
What an IVC filter problem means
These device claims concern the inferior vena cava, the vein also called the IVC. Fracture means the filter broke; migration describes a filter that moved out of position. Perforation means it penetrated the vein. If your medical record just says “filter complication,” you may not know which problem occurred, since those terms describe different things.
Ask your treating clinician to explain the findings to you. Was the filter damaged, or did it move out of position? If your record mentions perforation, ask which structure the filter affected and what that finding means for your care. A lawsuit's description won't give you enough information to understand what your own imaging shows.
The IVC Filter Lawsuit page at toledolaw.com describes FDA concerns about long-term risks, with lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) among them. The page also mentions fracture and migration, besides embolization. It's worth asking about your follow-up care. You can't tell from that discussion what's happening with your own filter.
How problems happen, and what to watch for
A reported failure mode tells you what happened to the filter, but it doesn't necessarily tell you what caused it. A lawyer reviewing a fracture needs different facts than a lawyer looking at the decision to implant the filter. When reviewing a warning claim, the lawyer asks what information the physician and patient received.
According to the Stangl Law article on IVC filter lawsuits, manufacturers allegedly failed to warn patients and physicians about increased risks. You can't treat those allegations as findings that apply to every manufacturer or every filter.
Organ damage and bleeding appear in the title of Seeger Weiss's IVC filter lawsuit page, which discusses serious injuries. That description doesn't give patients a checklist of symptoms. Those injury labels can't tell you whether a symptom you're experiencing is harmless or related to the filter.
Describe what happened so the lawyer has something concrete to review. Write down when the problem began and what you told the clinician, then save their response with any follow-up instructions they gave you in writing. Record dates. A dated message may help more than trying to remember later that you called “sometime that month.”
Device liability and medical malpractice are different questions
Much of what's published about IVC filter litigation discusses claims against manufacturers. A malpractice review asks a different question about the care you received. Do your records point to a particular kind of claim? Ask your lawyer. Don't assume your filter injury fits a particular category, because these injuries can involve different kinds of claims.
What would make the care negligent?
The lawyer reviewing malpractice must ask what the treating professional should have done in your circumstances, which is the standard of care. The lawyer must separately examine whether the alleged failure caused your injury (that's causation). Because the harm you suffered is a separate part of the review, the lawyer also needs to examine what actually happened to you.
Ask the lawyer to explain plainly what allegedly went wrong. The concern might involve the discussion before treatment rather than the decision to implant the filter, or the other way around. A later problem might raise questions about how the treating team responded. Ask a lawyer in your state which legal requirements apply to that concern, along with what medical evidence connects it to the injury you suffered.
If no one explained a risk before your treatment, the informed consent page discusses that kind of concern. Missing a complication can raise questions about misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Even if one of those labels fits, that alone doesn't give you a claim.
What would make it a device claim?
Ask the lawyer reviewing a possible device claim to compare your medical history with the filter's reported failure and what the manufacturer warned about. The Stangl Law article discusses allegations of failure to warn. Litigation involving Bard's Recover and G2 implants is named by Seeger Weiss. You can't conclude from that description that you received either of those models.
Lawsuits involving Bard's Recover and G2 IVC filter implants, as described by Seeger Weiss. This is a litigation count, not an injury rate.
That count doesn't tell you how likely your claim is to succeed, and it doesn't tell you what it might be worth. It also won't tell you whether you can still file a particular case at this point. Have the lawyer address your device and dates.
Prepare for a useful case review
Before you've worked out the medical or legal questions, you can still contact a lawyer. Separate what you suspect from what you actually know. If a clinician recorded a fracture, bring that report to the lawyer; otherwise, explain that the fracture is something you suspect.
What to gather and ask next
1
Identify the implanted filter
Along with the implant record, request any information identifying the device. Let the lawyer know if the manufacturer or model is unknown. Don't guess which filter you have from a picture you found online.
2
Collect the records about the complication
Gather the treatment notes together with the relevant imaging reports. When collecting records of later care, include documents that describe the filter's condition or link it to an injury.
3
Write a dated account
If you know the implant date, record it along with when you first noticed a problem and when a clinician explained the finding. Mark dates you're unsure about. Keep copies when you exchange messages about symptoms or follow-up.
4
Ask what claim is being considered
Does the concern involve medical care, the manufacturer or both? Ask the lawyer. Then ask which deadline needs attention first and what information the records still don't provide.
To show how the injury affected you, keep receipts and other documents. Rather than borrowing language from another patient's lawsuit, describe changes to your work or daily activities in the words you'd normally use. What you're actually facing is what the firm should assess.
Deadlines differ by state
Every IVC filter injury isn't covered by one nationwide deadline for filing. Because deadlines vary by state, don't assume the deadline for a medical malpractice claim also applies to a claim about the device. Start by checking the state pages. To understand how the rules fit your situation, ask a lawyer in the relevant state.
Even if the dates seem far in the past, tell the lawyer when the filter was implanted and when the problem was identified. Which dates count for the statute of limitations? Ask the lawyer. Your filing clock doesn't necessarily start when you hear about another patient's lawsuit.
Choosing the next conversation
Before choosing a firm, ask which IVC filter matters it handles and whether it reviews claims about medical care, not just claims about devices. Ask how your case differs if the firm points you to a result it's published. You can't predict your result from another patient's.
When you speak with your clinician, focus on understanding the finding and what comes next in your care. Deciding whether to pursue a claim is separate from that medical appointment. You're reading general information here, not legal advice.
Claims about fracture or migration involve an IVC filter, as do claims about the device perforating the inferior vena cava. When you speak with the clinician who recommended it, ask them to review the implant notes with you and explain its intended role in your treatment. In a legal review, the question changes: was your injury caused by a device problem or a failure in care?
What is the lawsuit against Cook Medical regarding the IVC filter?
If you read about an IVC filter lawsuit online, it may involve neither Cook Medical nor your model. Manufacturer failure-to-warn allegations are discussed generally in the Stangl Law article, while Bard's Recover and G2 implants are named by Seeger Weiss. You can't establish a Cook Medical case's allegations or status from either description. Using the manufacturer and model listed in your implant record, ask a lawyer to identify which litigation relates to your device.
What are symptoms of IVC filter problems?
Complications such as fracture and migration appear on the Stangl Law and toledolaw.com pages. You won't find a reliable symptom checklist there. Organ damage and bleeding are named on Seeger Weiss's page; concerns described by toledolaw.com include lower-limb DVT. While you're waiting for a legal review, don't put off a medical concern, and ask your treating clinician which symptoms need urgent assessment in your situation.
Is there a permanent IVC filter?
You can't tell whether a filter was intended to stay in place just because it's still implanted in your body. To find out which model you have and what plan was documented at placement, ask your treating team. Whether devices are permanent, or what should happen with yours, isn't established by the lawsuit descriptions from Stangl Law, Seeger Weiss and toledolaw.com. Bring the implant record to a legal review if you're concerned about the treatment plan.
What is the average lifespan of an IVC filter?
You can't guide your care by one average lifespan established on the law-firm pages, because they don't provide one. FDA concerns about long-term risks appear on the toledolaw.com page. Neither a removal timetable for you nor a prediction of device failure follows from those concerns. When discussing follow-up, ask your clinician how your filter's instructions and treatment history affect it, while a lawyer can separately review whether your records raise a legal concern.
Can I get an MRI if I have an IVC filter?
Whether your filter is MRI-compatible isn't established by the lawsuit pages. Let the imaging team know before the scan that you have an implanted filter, and give them the device's identification information. Have your treating clinician or the imaging team check the particular device you have. If you don't know the model, request the implant record rather than relying on a general lawsuit page.
1
