Cook IVC filter litigation · Evidence guide
The Cook IVC filter cases separate device allegations from the broader medical record
Plaintiffs allege Cook filters can fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the vena cava. FDA guidance and medical research explain real filter risks without deciding whether a Cook product caused an individual injury.
What the lawsuits allege
The federal cases allege that design defects in Cook inferior vena cava filters can make them more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt or perforate the vein. Cook opposed centralization. The transfer order organized shared pretrial questions; it did not decide whether a filter was defective or caused a particular injury.
What the medical record adds
FDA has advised clinicians to consider removing a retrievable filter once protection from pulmonary embolism is no longer needed. A systematic review also describes complications across IVC filters. Neither source proves a defect in a particular Cook model, and neither can explain one patient's outcome without individual medical evidence.
Where the federal cases stand
MDL 2570 is in the Southern District of Indiana before Judge Richard L. Young. JPML listed 6,537 actions pending on August 3, 2026. That number measures docket activity, not successful claims or medical events.
Verification ledger
Primary sources
Cook IVC Filters transfer order
The allegations, Cook's procedural position and centralization record.
MDL 2570, Document 29
FDA IVC-filter removal-device announcement
FDA's retrieval recommendation in clinical context.
2014 safety communication summary
IVC Filters and Complications
Broad systematic evidence, not Cook-specific proof.
PMID 37287823 · DOI 10.7759/cureus.40038
Pending MDLs
The dated federal docket snapshot.
Page 1, MDL 2570