Cook Gunther Tulip IVC filter

Cook IVC Filter

Cook Medical
The Cook Gunther Tulip IVC filter was first made available in the United States in 2003. This IVC filter has four anchoring struts for fixation and eight independent secondary struts to improve clot trapping and centering of the device.

The Cook Gunther Tulip IVC filter is an optionally-retrievable IVC filter. Once the risk of clotting has passed, it should be removed from the patient. After 3 to 4 months, the filter is susceptible to breaking or moving in the body, which can lead to serious complications and even death for the patient.

Notably, in 2010, the FDA released a Safety Communication warning about the dangers associated with failing to remove optionally retrievable IVC filters. During a five-year period, the FDA received 921 reports of a patient experiencing an adverse event involving IVC filters. A breakdown of the adverse events is below:

  • 56 cases of filter fractures
  • 328 cases of filter migrations
  • 146 cases of detachment of the IVC components
  • 70 cases of perforation

Not surprisingly, some of the patients had serious adverse outcomes as a result of these events.

For More Information on IVC Filters:

  1. American Bar Association. (2013). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Retrieved from:
  2. Bouldry, Huff, Lorenz and Roberts vs. Bard. (2012). 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. Class action complaint for medical monitoring.
  3. Carr v. C. R. Bard. (2014). Case No. 3:13 CV 824. Memorandum opinion and order. Retrieved from:
  4. Cleveland Clinic. (2014). Inferior vene cava (IVC) filter retrieval. Retrieved from:
  5. Davis v. C.R. Bard. (2012). U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. Order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion for summary judgement. Retrieved from:
  6. Deleon and Gonzalez. (2012). Class complaint for medical monitoring; Demand for trial by jury. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles – Central District.
  7. Ebert v. C. R. Bard (2014). U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Memorandum. Retrieved from:
  8. Johnson and Johnson v. Cook Medical. (2015). U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division. Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial.
  9. Lehmann, J. (2004, December 15). Evaluation of MAUDE reporting rates, sales estimates and comparative bench testing related to vena cava filters. Retrieved from:
  10. Brown and Brown vs. Bard. (2012). Class action complaint for medical monitoring. Court of Common Please Philadelphia County.
  11. Nicholson, W. et al. (2010, November 8). Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. JAMA Internal Medicine, 170(20), 1,827-1,831. Retrieved from:
  12. Sandler, T. Naggiar, S., & Gosik, S. (2015, September 3). Did blood-clot filter used on thousands of Americans have fatal flaw? NBC News. Retrieved from:
  13. Sandler, T. Naggiar, S., & Gosik, S. (2015, September 4). Did forged signature clear way for dangerous blood-clot filter?. NBC News. Retrieved from:
  14. Shayna, S., Crowther, M., & Sloan, M. (2013). Indications, complications, and management of inferior vena cava filters: The experience in 952 patients at an academic hospital with a level 1 trauma center. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(7), 513-517. Retrieved from:
  15. Tillman vs. C. R. Bard. (2013). U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville Division. Complaint for damages.
  16. U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana. (2015). MDL Case Information. Retrieved from:
  17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010, August 9). Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: Initial communication. Retrieved from:
  18. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014, May 6). Removing retrievable inferior vena cava filters: FDA safety communication. Retrieved from:
  19. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2014, October 15). Transfer Order MDL No. 2570. Retrieved from:
  20. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2015, August 17). Transfer Order MDL No. 2641. Retrieved from:
  21. Vlasvich vs. C.R. Bard. (2013). U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Complaint.

Over $500 Million
Recovered Since 1993

We've Helped Thousands of People Just Like You

We are known for getting life-changing results and fighting to make our communities safer.

Why Choose Us As Your  Attorneys?

With us on your side, you can focus on what’s most important – your recovery.

Decades Of Experience

Decades Of Experience

Our Nashville attorneys have over 75 years of combined practice handling cases involving personal injury, medical malpractice, civil rights, medical device lawsuits, wrongful death, and much more.

Excellent Reputation

Excellent Reputation

DRS Law is a well-respected law firm in Nashville and throughout the U.S. Founder, David Randolph Smith, has been selected as a Mid-South Super Lawyer, named one of the Top 100 attorneys in Tennessee in all fields of practice, and is included in the Best Lawyers in America guidebook.

Small Case Volume

Small Case Volume

Unlike many Nashville firms or lawyers that handle a large volume of cases, we concentrate our expertise on a select few cases. With this, our attorneys ensure that every step is taken to obtain the most favorable outcomes for our clients.

We Prepare For Trial

We Prepare For Trial

Every case is meticulously prepared for trial by our trial team and support staff in order to maximize the recovery for our client, whether by settlement or trial verdict. Our proven track record of success has resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements and judgments in a wide variety of individual and group cases.

What to Expect

Our Legal Services Are Completely Personalized To You And Your Unique Needs

01  Free Consultation

Our top-rated Tennessee personal injury lawyers provide free, no-pressure case evaluations. We will help you determine if you have a case and will answer all your questions in plain English. We never charge any fees until we win your case.

02  Personalized Service

If we take your case, it’s because we believe we can help you. We will get to work outlining a strategic plan of action. We want you to feel taken care of during this difficult time — whatever questions you have, we’re here with answers. Frequent check-ins ensure you are comfortable with the progress of your case.

03  You Get Paid

We are passionate about the success of your case and will give it the close attention and focus it deserves. We find solutions that other lawyers miss, discovering key facts that help you win. We call upon our gifts in storytelling to argue your case with passion and conviction so you get the compensation and justice you deserve.

What Our Clients Say