Florida Getting Spillover Pradaxa Blood-Thinner Litigation, Once Reserved for Connecticut
Co-national leads for litigation against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., C. Andrew Childers of Childers, Schlueter & Smith in Atlanta and Neal Moskow of Ury & Moskow in Fairfield, Connecticut, have branched out with two Florida lawsuits in an attempt to avoid overcrowded Connecticut dockets.
August 26, 2019 at 02:24 PM
4 minute read
Two Florida plaintiffs have filed federal lawsuits against Connecticut-based drug giant Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., accusing it of over-promoting and misrepresenting Pradaxa, a blood-thinning medication that alleges causes internal bleeding.
Pradaxa is used to prevent blood clots and lower the risk of stroke for patients with irregular heartbeats.
But Berta Marquez, 74, and Edward Silverstein, 71, allege Pradaxa was the legal cause of episodes of uncontrollable bleeding that landed them in Hialeah and Delray Beach hospitals, respectively, for weeks. They seek damages for failure to warn, negligence and product liability.
Their complaints add to mounting litigation against Boehringer Ingelheim, which faces about 3,000 pending lawsuits in courts nationwide, but mainly in Connecticut.
Plaintiff attorneys C. Andrew Childers of Childers, Schlueter & Smith in Atlanta and Neal Moskow of Ury & Moskow in Fairfield, Connecticut, are co-national lead counsels for the litigation. They say they filed in Florida to avoid adding to the backlog.
"We've made a decision in the last several weeks that we will be filing more cases in federal courts and fewer in Connecticut state court," Moskow said. "There just aren't enough judges in Connecticut to try all the cases being filed."
Marquez and Silverstein's lawsuits claim Boehringer Ingelheim risked patient safety by touting Pradaxa as the first drug of its kind to require no monitoring, when in fact a blood test would have told doctors whether patient doses were too high or too low.
"They're marketing it as a one-size-fits-all drug, and the science that we've shown juries is that that's not true, and that there are people who are getting too much," Moskow said. "For those people, Pradaxa isn't the right drug."
Moskow said that if patients receive too much blood-thinning medication, even minor internal injuries could become a major bleed, especially in the gastrointestinal tract.
"Virtually everyone has little injuries in their intestines or in their stomach that, under normal circumstances, don't bleed," Moskow said. "But if you have too much of this drug in your system, it can cause even those very small injuries to bleed."
The lawsuit claims Boehringer Ingelheim failed to properly test Pradaxa and to warn doctors about the risk of bleeding. It implied the reason for that was "blockbuster" Pradaxa sales, which topped $1 billion in 2011.
According to the complaint, reports filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration suggest that Pradaxa was a factor in at least 120 deaths and 150 instances of life-threatening bleeding.
Boehringer Ingelheim has previously argued that federal law shields it from liability because the Food and Drug Administration has approved the Pradaxa label.
Company spokeswoman Lauren Murphy said, "Boehringer Ingelheim stands behind the safety and effectiveness of Pradaxa. Four previous court cases have reached the conclusion that the safety of Pradaxa is clearly reflected in its FDA-approved label."
Boehringer Ingelheim resolved about 4,000 lawsuits over Pradaxa with a $650 million settlement in 2014. The five cases tried since have produced a mixed bag, with two plaintiffs verdicts, one defense verdict and two mixed verdicts, where jurors found the defendant breached the standard of care but didn't award damages.
The major hurdle for plaintiffs, according to Moskow, is demonstrating that these cases aren't unavoidable effects of blood thinning medication, like, for example, patients with wounds that bleed more than they usually would.
"These are people who, because of the way the drug works, are getting too much in their system," Moskow said. "The company knows that there's a safe range, and we need to show that certain people are getting too much in their system so that they're at an excessive risk of bleeding."
U.S. District Judges Rodolfo Ruiz and Federico Moreno are scheduled to hear the Florida cases.
Related stories:
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readFreeman Mathis & Gary Taps Orlando for Third New Florida Office This Year
3 minute readFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250