Articles Posted in Pharmaceuticals

Xarelto, a drug commonly used to treat strokes and to prevent blood clots, has come under fire for the severe risks it poses to patients. Although there has not been a recall of the drug, a number of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging that they experienced severe complications as a result of taking Xarelto.

According to the plaintiffs’ complaints, Xarelto caused uncontrollable bleeding to occur. The medication is designed to disrupt blood clotting patterns to prevent strokes from occurring, but it lacks an antidote to prevent any incidences of bleeding from becoming life-threatening. The plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer did not properly warn against the dangerous risk of bleeding episodes and the inability to stop them once they start.

Instead, the manufacturer advertised Xarelto as being safe and providing a more convenient solution than wafarin, another drug prescribed to combat blood clots and strokes. Unlike Xarelto, however, wafarin has a known antidote that doctors can use to stop bleeding episodes. In reality, Xarelto has been associated with a number of devastating and life-threatening conditions, including gastrointestinal bleeding, brain hemorrhages, strokes, and death.

Continue reading →

According to nationwide reports, families are bringing countless lawsuits against the makers of the drug Zofran and related substances, alleging that the use of the anti-nausea drug resulted in children being born with severe birth defects. As a result of the high number of Zofran and related drug lawsuits being brought, they have been consolidated in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, in the District Court of Massachusetts in Boston. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has named the action MDL No. 2657, or In Re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation.

The prescription drugs Zofran, also known as ondansetron, and Zuplenz have been associated with severe and debilitating pregnancy complications and birth defects. Doctors initially prescribed the drugs to pregnant women to help curb the high levels of vomiting and nausea that pregnant women often experience. Studies have linked the drugs to birth defects, causing families who have suffered grave consequences as a result to bring lawsuits against the maker of the drug, GlaxoSmithKline, claiming that the company marketed the drug to the public without first obtaining appropriate U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approvals.

Continue reading →

In Saavedra v. Eli Lilly & Co., the plaintiffs brought suit against the manufacturer of the anti-depressant drug Cymbalta, alleging not that they overpaid for the product but that they were harmed because they received a product that had less value than what they expected to receive. The plaintiffs sought to certify four classes under consumer fraud protection statutes in four jurisdictions:  California, Massachusetts, New York, and Missouri. Initially, the trial court rejected these classes, stating that the plaintiffs had asserted an “unusual” theory of recovery. More specifically, the plaintiffs omitted any allegations indicating how they suffered or experienced the withdrawal symptoms.

Instead, the plaintiffs contended that they received a product that had less utility, which they defined as the benefit they believed they would receive from using the product. The trial court rejected this theory, noting that it focused only on the refund associated with users’ out-of-pocket costs. In reality, the prescription drug market’s price and value relationship is severed due to the nature of how prescription drugs are marketed and sold.

Continue reading →

In Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceuticals, the plaintiff was prescribed a course of treatment involving the drug Solodyn for her chronic acne. According to the plaintiff, she received two publications providing information about the drug. The first document was a MediSAVE card that outlined a program for discounted purchases of the drug and warned that the drug’s safety beyond a 12-week period had not been studied. The second document was an information insert provided at the pharmacy, detailing Solodyn’s possible side effects and safety conditions. The insert also instructed takers of the drug to contact their physician if any side effects or symptoms persisted past a 12-week period.

According to the plaintiff, the two pieces of information provided to her, the card and the insert, did not bear the same warnings and possible side effects as the FDA-approved patient label or the full prescribing information that the medical provider received with Solodyn. According to the full prescribing information, for example, the drug could potentially lead to autoimmune hepatitis or a lupus-like syndrome when the drug was ingested over a long period of time.

Continue reading →