When the anticoagulant drug Pradaxa hit the U.S. market in late 2010, part of the marketing appeal was that the medication did not require blood monitoring, dose adjustments or dietary restrictions.
But dozens of plaintiffs in Louisianna, Illinois, Tennessee and now Connecticut claim they were injured – in one case fatally – because the manufacturer did not provide an antidote to stop dangerous bleeding and did not adequately warn doctors about bleeding risks.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
