Bernstein Liebhard LLP Notes Recent Status Conference in Federal Pradaxa Lawsuit Litigation, Where More Than 1,600 Cases Have Now Been Filed


New York, NY (PRWEB) October 13, 2013

Thousands of federally-filed Pradaxa lawsuit (http://www.pradaxalawsuithelp.com/) claims took a step forward this month with a recent status conference that discussed matters vital to the litigation currently underway in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, along with an update reflecting numerous additions to its case list, Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports.

According to Minutes published October 8th on the Courts website, the federal proceedings latest Conference covered a range of issues relevant to cases alleging Pradaxa bleeding side effects caused by the blood-thinning drug.* The scheduling of depositions, as well as updates on the litigations upcoming bellwether case selection were among the items listed on the Courts agenda. The next status conference in the federal Pradaxa proceeding, which now includes more than 1,600 cases, was also set for November 6th, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (In Re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2385)

Our Firm continues to hear from individuals who allegedly experienced frightening episodes of Pradaxa bleeding, so we are pleased to see this litigation moving forward, says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing individuals harmed by defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is currently offering free case reviews to potential Pradaxa lawsuit claimants who may have suffered life-threatening internal bleeding injuries associated with the blood thinner.

Pradaxa Lawsuits

A recent Case List update shows a total of 1,622 Pradaxa lawsuit claims now pending in the federal Illinois proceeding. These cases similarly allege that Boehringer Ingelheim failed to warn about Pradaxas potential to cause cerebral hemorrhaging, gastrointestinal bleeding, and other life-threatening internal bleeding injuries in patients taking the medication.

Pradaxa was approved in October 2010 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients with atrial fibrillation. Then marketed as an improvement over warfarin, a blood-thinner prescribed for generations, the Boehringer-manufactured medication has since become a growing concern to federal regulators who have issued numerous safety alerts about the possibility for users to experience Pradaxa bleeding side effects, according to Bloomberg.com.*

What makes potential Pradaxa bleeding side effects so dangerous is that there is no readily available antidote to reverse them, while internal bleeding from warfarin can be stopped with the administration of vitamin K. The findings of a study published in January 2013 by the Institute for Safe Medicine Practices revealed that individuals who experienced episodes of Pradaxa bleeding were 5 times more likely to die than those who had suffered bleeding while taking warfarin.

Individuals who may have experienced life-threatening Pradaxa bleeding side effects may be eligible to receive compensation for out-of-pocket medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering and more. Click here to speak with a Pradaxa lawyer at Bernstein Liebhard LLP today. You may also receive a free case review from a member of the Firms team of legal professionals by calling 800-511-5092.

*ilsd.uscourts.gov/Documents/mdl2385/Minutes10082013.pdf

**bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/boehringer-sued-by-hundreds-over-bleeding-tied-to-pradaxa.html, Bloomberg.com, December 11, 2012

About Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex individual and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993, including those who have been harmed by dangerous drugs, defective medical devices and consumer products. The firm has been named by The National Law Journal to the Plaintiffs Hot List, recognizing the top plaintiffs firms in the country, for the past 10 consecutive years.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP

10 East 40th Street

New York, New York 10016

800-511-5092

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

Biomet Hip Lawsuits News: Number of Cases Increases in Federal Courts, Reports Rottenstein Law Group LLP


(PRWEB) September 25, 2013

There are now more than 650 Biomet hip lawsuits pending in federal courts, an increase of about 70 from August, according to court documents. The Biomet hip lawyers at Rottenstein Law Group LLP encourage those interested in more information about lawsuits and side effects to visit its Biomet Hip Replacement Lawsuit Center.

The Biomet lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana before Judge Robert L. Miller in order to increase pretrial efficiency, according to court documents (In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation; MDL-2391, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana).

The M2a Magnum is one of a number of metal-on-metal hip devices over which people are filing lawsuits, said Rochelle Rottenstein, principal of the Rottenstein Law Group LLP. In addition, the devices have been under the scrutiny of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. There is a reason to further review ones legal options if a person believes he or she has suffered injuries from his or her hip implant.

The Biomet M2a Magnum implant is a metal-on-metal hip replacement device. The implants composition is such that it can cause problems when the metal components rub together and flake off metal ions into the implantees bloodstream, according to a January 2013 safety communication from the FDA.* Other alleged side effects include chronic pain, a popping sound and a grinding sensation in the hip device.

The Rottenstein Law Group LLP encourages those who are interested in learning more about the Biomets alleged side effects or Biomet lawsuits to visit its FAQ page for quick answers to several important questions.

*http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241604.htm

About THE ROTTENSTEIN LAW GROUP LLP

The Rottenstein Law Group LLP is a New York-based firm that represents clients nationwide in mass tort actions. The firm was founded by Rochelle Rottenstein, who has more than two decades of experience as a lawyer, to represent clients hurt by defective medical devices and medications. (Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)

Contact:

The Rottenstein Law Group LLP

Rochelle Rottenstein, Esq.

321 W. 44th Street

# 804

New York NY 10036

(212) 933-9500 (office phone)

(212) 933-9980 (facsimile)

rochelle (at) rotlaw (dot) com

DrugRisk Update: Judge Calls For Mirena Lawsuit Test Cases


New York, NY (PRWEB) September 19, 2013

The birth control safety advocates at DrugRisk.com have added new information for women using the IUD contraceptive Mirena. A federal court overseeing lawsuits alleging the device caused perforation injuries recently ordered parties to begin selecting initial test cases for trial*.

DrugRisk was created to improve the safety of patients using popular prescription drugs or medical devices by giving them the latest safety alerts, recalls, studies and legal news. Visitors can determine if others are experiencing similar side effects and decide if they need legal advice.

The resource center has added health warnings from the FDA that Mirena IUDs can cause perforation of reproductive organs during implantation**. The Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons has also advised that Mirena IUDs can become dislodged and perforate internal organs after they are inserted***.

A study from the United Kingdom found that 60% of patients discontinue use of the Mirena IUD before five years due to side effects****. The FDA has already received 70,072 reports of Mirena side effects, with as many as 6,000 involving device dislocation or perforation of the uterus*****.

Due to the number of patients filing a Mirena lawsuit, many cases have been consolidated to a special multi-district litigation court in the Southern District of New York. (In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434). The latest court records show 123 cases have already been filed.

Now, Judge Cathy Seibel, who is overseeing the federal litigation, has ordered that parties select an initial pool of bellwether cases by April 4, 2014*. Such cases can give the parties a sample of jury reaction and set the tone for settlement negotiations.

Anyone who suffered perforation or required surgery while using a Mirena IUD is urged to speak with a lawyer or visit the DrugRisk resource center for more information. However, DrugRisk only recommends lawyers who are already handling these complex Mirena lawsuits.

For more information on the research, side effects and litigation news related to Mirena or other birth control devices, or to speak with a lawyer, visit http://www.DrugRisk.com.

*U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel, Scheduling Order, 8/16/13; injurylawyer-news.com/2013/09/mirena-mdl-time-table-released/

**FDA, July 2008; http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/Safety-RelatedDrugLabelingChanges/ucm121936.htm

***JSLS March, 2011; ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134688/

****Gynecological Endocrinology, 7/31/09; cbgnetwork.org/3538.html

*****NBC News, 6/17/13; kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/thousands-of-women-complain-about-dangerous-complications-from-mirena-iud-birth-control1371610411705







Updated Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Failure Allegation Lawsuits News: Resource4thePeople Reports Conflicting Court Rulings on Medtronic Cases

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) August 23, 2013

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivemedicaldevices/medtronic.html

Resource4thePeople, in its latest update to consumers following the progress of lawsuits over Medtronic Infuse bone graft failure allegations, is reporting some key court developments involving the litigation.

As Medtronic Infuse bone graft lawsuits continue to be filed across the country two recent and contradictory rulings by judges have affected some of these cases.

One group of dozens of Medtronic Infuse lawsuits were recently dismissed* by a Minnesota judge who found that federal law now prevents those plaintiffs from being granted trials over allegations that they suffered serious side effects from the devices.

The decision came a few weeks after an Illinois judge denied Medtronics efforts to dismiss** another Infuse lawsuit filed against the company over allegations that the Infuse had been used in unapproved uses and marketed under faulty labeling.

As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported*** on Aug. 7, 2013: The conflicting decisions further muddle the legal landscape for thousands of potential injury claims across the country. While doctors have the discretion to use Infuse in unapproved ways, experts say Medtronic may not legally promote such alternatives.

Resource4thePeople, meanwhile, will continue to offer through its nationwide network of attorneys free consultations to consumers seeking information about their legal options over allegations of serious health problems as a result of Medtronic Infuse bone grafts.

Although contradictory rulings have been made by judges in different jurisdictions we are continuing to accept claims about allegations of health problems caused by the Medtronic Infuse bone graft, said Resource4thePeople.

It is not uncommon for judges to issue rulings that appear contradictory and there are serious legal issues involved in these cases that will eventually be decided by higher courts. As this process proceeds we will continue to provide free consultations to consumers.

Resource4thePeople notes that the newspaper article points out that the Minnesota judges decision does allow those who sued to refile their cases with more specific allegations of fraud that involves promotion of nonapproved uses of Infuse by Medtronic.

The rulings came after the critical findings of an independent academic review of the marketing practices of Medtronic were released from a Yale University study, which was published**** June 18, 2013 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

It was undertaken as an independent study after the medical devices were the subject of a Class 1 Recall by the Food and Drug Administration***** and a highly critical report****** from a U.S. Senate committee that raised concerns about conflicts of interest because of payments the company made to medical researchers and physicians.

Studies funded by Medtronic underplayed the benefits of the Infuse bone grafts and failed to report many serious side effects, according to both Yale researchers and Senate investigators.

The Yale researchers reported such serious side effects as excessive bone growth, male sterility, inflammations and paralysis, according to the report.

The Yale researchers were critical of previous Medtronic-funded research studies which provided endorsements of the safety and effectiveness of the Infuse bone grafts. The Yale researchers said those studies were biased, as did Senate investigators in their report.

The Yale researchers summarized their findings in comparing the Medtronic Infuse bone graft (rhBMP-2) to traditional treatment by saying:

In conclusion, we found substantial evidence of reporting bias and no evidence that rhBMP-2 is more effective than ICBG in spinal fusion, with some evidence of an association with important harms. More research is needed to provide more reliable estimates of risk for cancer and other adverse events and to identify patient populations in which use of rhBMP-2 may be beneficial, such as cases where use of bone graft alone is associated with a high risk for pseudarthrosis. On the basis of the currently available evidence, it is difficult to identify clear indications for rhBMP-2 in spinal fusion.

Resource4thePeople also is announcing that it will continue to provide regular updates for consumers who may have been affected by treatment with Medtronic Infuse bone grafts.

This will continue to be an area of prime focus for us as we provide consumers legal options involving allegations that the Medtronic Infuse Bone Grafts may have caused serious, life-threatening health problems, said Resource4thePeople.

Resource4thePeople also said that its attorneys will continue to review claims from consumers who are alleging they may have suffered severe back and leg pain, infections, bone deterioration, sterility and cancer, among other problems.

In the FDAs Feb. 16, 2011 Class 1 Recall of Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft pumps and refill kits, the FDA warned that the products “may result in patient harm, serious injury, and/or death due to drug overdose or underdose.

Class I recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

Resource4thePeoples legal team is also investigating claims similar to those contained in a federal lawsuit******* filed in March in the Southern District of Ohio against Medtronic Inc. and an Ohio surgeon who, according to complaint, was a paid Medtronic consultant in addition to his professional duties.

The lawsuit includes allegations that 88 patients are claiming that underwent spine surgeries involving bone protein that they did not consent to and have suffered detrimental side effects for which they are seeking compensation.

The lawsuit claims that “medically unnecessary, experimental spine surgeries” were performed “using falsely and improperly marketed Medtronic medical devices and drugs,” according to allegations contained in the court file.

Sources:

*Case # 2013-L-000305, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

**Lawrence et al vs. Medtronic Case #27-cv-13-1197, Minnesota Disrict Court, Fourth Judicial District

***http://www.startribune.com/business/218743511.html

****http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1696646

*****http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/ucm243634.htm

******http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=b1d112cb-230f-4c2e-ae55-13550074fe86

******Case # 1:13cv0202 U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio







Zithromax Arrhythmia and Sudden Death Cases Allegations Update: Resource4thePeople Reports FDA Issued Warning Letter to Manufacturer over False and Misleading Information

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) August 08, 2013

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivedrugs/Zithromax-lawsuits.html

Resource4thePeople announced today its latest update for consumers seeking information about the possibility of life-threatening negative side effects from popular antibiotics Zithromax and Zmax SR as outlined by the Food and Drug Administration.*

The latest information involves a strongly worded warning letter** sent to the medications’ manufacturer, Pfizer Inc., over language federal officials described as “false” and “misleading” in a brochure that the company sent out promoting the antibiotics.

The contents of the June, 19, 2012 letter were found during a recent check of FDA records by Resource4thePeople, whose national team of attorneys are offering free consultations to consumers who allegedly suffered serious heart problems from the use of the antibiotics.

“This warning letter from high-ranking FDA officials calls into question the honesty and marketing methods of Pfizer in promoting medicines that the FDA earlier had warned consumers and health care professionals about over life-threatening heart problems,” said Resource4thePeople.

“In addition to announcing these free consultations about possible legal options to seek compensation for the loss of a loved one, medical costs, loss of wages, pain and suffering and other expenses, Resource4thePeople also will continue to provide updates about new developments involving these medications.”

In its warning letter the FDA criticized a brochure issued by Pfizer for the medications and made the following finding:

“The brochure is false or misleading because it omits and minimizes important risk information, makes unsubstantiated superiority claims, omits material facts, broadens the indication for the drug product, makes misleading efficacy claims, and makes unsubstantiated claims for Zmax. Therefore, the brochure misbrands the drug in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 352(a); 321(n). Cf. 21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)(i) & (iii); (e)(6)(i) & (ii); (e)(7)(i) & (viii).”

FDA regulators also found in the warning letter that the brochure omitted important information that should have warned consumers about the risk of serious heart problems:

“Specifically, the brochure omits the important risk of QT prolongation associated with Zmax use. The WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS section of the PI states, [p]rolonged cardiac repolarization and QT interval, imparting a risk of developing cardiac arrhythmia and torsades de pointes, have been seen in treatment with other macrolides. A similar effect with azithromycin cannot be completely ruled out in patients at increased risk for prolonged cardiac repolarization (emphasis in original). By omitting this serious risk associated with Zmax, the brochure misleadingly suggests that the drug is safer than has been demonstrated.”

Resource4thePeople notes that since the warning Pfizer has posted*** an announcement about arrhythmia side effects on its web site, said Resource4thePeople.

With both the FDA and Pfizer now informing the public about the dangers of arrhythmia we encourage all consumers to completely review the side effects of Zithromax or any other medication that they may be using,” said Resource4thePeople.

Resource4thePeople also announced that it has received an overwhelming positive response to the information center it created to inform consumers about the latest information involving legal rights over allegations that Zithromax and Zmax SR (azithromycin) can cause heart problems.

The information site also has easy-to-follow links to free consultations for consumers seeking to determine what legal rights they may have to compensation in such cases in the wake of the May, 17, 2012 warning* issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA, in the warning, provided information to patients and physicians about possible life-threatening side effects from the medications that may lead to irregular heart rhythms.

Consumers also should be aware that there may be legal time limits involved in the filing of a Zithromax lawsuit over allegations of serious side effects and early consultations about their status are recommended.

Antibiotics are among the most prescribed medications and azithromycin is most commonly chosen by doctors to treat a variety of bacterial infections. The medications are most frequently used for bronchitis, pneumonia, chest infections, urinary tract and other common infections.

The FDA warning and a study published the same day in a respected medical journal**** cited concerns about whether patients who use the medications are at higher risk of suffering cardiac problems.

FDA officials said that they had been made aware of the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in which medical researchers found a higher percentage of cardiovascular deaths among patients treated with azithromycin (Zithromax) than with other antibiotics or no drugs.

The FDA also passed on this information about the review and ordered updated warnings on the medications labels about health risks:

The WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS section of the Zmax drug label (azithromycin extended release for oral suspension) was revised in March 2012 to include new information regarding risk for QT interval prolongation, which appears to be low.

The drug labels for clarithromycin and erythromycin also contain information about QT interval prolongation in the WARNINGS section. FDA is in the process of updating risk information in the drug labels for additional macrolide antibacterial drugs.

The New England Journal of Medicine study included research compiled from information accumulated from about 350,000 patients who were treated with azithromycin over a 15-year period and concluded that these patients were one and a half times more likely to suffer cardiovascular sudden death than patients treated with other antibiotics.

One of the factors that made Zithromax so popular was the fact that it could be taken as a five-day treatment while most other antibiotics are prescribed to be taken over a 10-day treatment plan.

SOURCES:

*http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm304372.htm

**http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/UCM310527.pdf

***http://www.pfizer.com/news/zithromax.jsp

**** http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1003833







2013 Alleged Zithromax Arrhythmia and Sudden Death Cases Update: Canadian Health Officials Issue Warning

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) May 24, 2013

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivedrugs/Zithromax-lawsuits.html

Resource4thePeople is informing consumers today of the latest update involving allegations that the use of the popular antibiotics Zithromax and Zmax SR (azithromycin) can allegedly cause potentially fatal irregular heart rhythms.

The Canadian Broadcasting Company reported on May 17, 2013* that Health Canada has joined the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in warning that Zithromax can cause abnormal changes in the electrical activity of the heart that may lead to a potentially fatal irregular heart rhythm.

The medications are most frequently used for bronchitis, pneumonia, chest infections, urinary tract and other common infections.

The CBC said that the advisory from Health Canada says a “small absolute increase in the risk of cardiovascular deaths was observed in patients taking azithromycin as compared to those who took no antibiotics and those who took amoxicillin in a recent study.”

Resource4thePeople also is announcing it will continue to provide consumers access to a national network of attorneys offering free legal consultations to patients who suffered alleged serious heart problems as a result of their use of Zithromax.

The recent health warning issued in Canada that follows concerns issued by the FDA about Zithromax and the allegations of serious side effects has increased the number of recent inquiries about legal rights, said Resource4thePeople. Therefore, we will continue to provide consumers with consultations informing them about their legal options to seek compensation for alleged side effects from the use of these medications.

The increase in consumer inquiries stems from concerns about side effects from the antibiotics issued May 17, 2012 by the Food and Drug Administration** and a respected medical journal*** about whether patients who use the medications are at higher risk of suffering cardiac problems, said Resource4thePeople.

We have now added additional resources to investigate claims of health problems caused by the use of the antibiotics sold as Zithromax, the Z-Pak and azithromycin, said Resource4thePeople.

We will be able to provide the legal options that may be available for consumers to seek compensation for such expenses as medical costs, pain and suffering, loss of wages and other expenses that may have been incurred.

Resource4thePeople said a large number of the legal inquiries focused on the issuance by the FDA of a Safety Information Report** on risk of cardiovascular death in connection with the use of Zithromax.

In that report, FDA officials said that they have been made aware of a study*** published in the New England Journal of Medicine in which medical researchers found a higher percentage of cardiovascular deaths among patients treated with azithromycin (Zithromax) than with other antibiotics or no drugs.

The FDA announced that it is reviewing the findings of this study and said it will inform health care professionals and consumers about the results of this review after its completion.

The FDA also passed on this information about the review and updated warnings on the medications labels about health risks:

Azithromycin belongs to a class of antibacterial drugs called macrolides, which have been associated with cardiovascular effects; specifically, prolongation of the QT interval. In 2011, FDA reviewed macrolide drug labeling information related to QT interval prolongation and TdP.

The WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS section of the Zmax drug label (azithromycin extended release for oral suspension) was revised in March 2012 to include new information regarding risk for QT interval prolongation, which appears to be low.

The drug labels for clarithromycin and erythromycin also contain information about QT interval prolongation in the WARNINGS section. FDA is in the process of updating risk information in the drug labels for additional macrolide antibacterial drugs.

The FDA also recommended that patients who are taking azithromycin should not stop taking their medicine without talking to their health care professional and that physicians should be aware of the potential for QT interval prolongation and heart arrhythmias when prescribing or administering macrolides.

In its Safety Information Report the FDA also encouraged patients and health care professionals to report adverse events or side effects caused by the use of these medications to the agency, said Resource4thePeople.

While the FDA is fulfilling its role of monitoring the safety of drugs such as Zithromax we are responding to reports from patients who are seeking information about what their legal rights may be and we are committed to providing that information on a case-by-case basis.

The New England Journal of Medicine study*** included research compiled from information accumulated from about 350,000 patients who were treated with azithromycin over a 15-year period and concluded that these patients were one and a half times more likely to suffer cardiovascular sudden death than patients treated with other antibiotics.

Antibiotics are among the most prescribed medications and azithromycin is most commonly chosen by doctors to treat a variety of bacterial infections.

One of the factors that made Zithromax so popular was the fact that it could be taken as a five-day treatment while most other antibiotics are prescribed to be taken over a 10-day treatment plan.

The fact that there were so many individuals included in this massive research study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine study and that the FDA is now reviewing this material has increased concerns by many consumers who are telling us that they were treated with this medication, said Resource4thePeople.

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivedrugs/Zithromax-lawsuits.html

SOURCES:

*http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/05/16/azithromycin-heart.html

**http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm304372.htm

*** http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1003833







DrugRisk Update: Court Record Shows Drop in Yaz Lawsuits as Cases Settle


Chicago, IL (PRWEB) May 16, 2013

The birth control safety center at DrugRisk.com is announcing new information on the site for women who have taken the contraceptives Yaz or Yasmin. A recent court update shows the number of cases filed alleging blood clots has fallen, as Bayer continues to settle claims*.

DrugRisk.com was created to improve patient safety by providing those taking popular prescription drugs with the latest research, safety alerts, recalls and litigation news. Visitors can determine if others have experienced similar side effects and decide if they need legal advice.

The resource center has added warnings from health experts like the British Medical Journal** and FDA*** that birth control pills containing the hormone drospirenone, such as Yaz and Yasmin, can increase the risk of blood clots, DVT and pulmonary embolism by as much as 74%.

After thousands of patients filed a Yaz lawsuit alleging blood clots, cases were consolidated to a special federal Multi-District Litigation court in Illinois (Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2100, Southern District Illinois)).

Bayers latest annual report shows the company had faced claims from over 13,000 patients, but has spent almost $ 1 billion so far to settle around 4,800 Yaz lawsuits alleging blood clot injuries like deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism, and will continue to evaluate new cases for settlement****.

Now, DrugRisk has added the latest update from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which shows the number of filed claims has fallen to 9,961 from the 13,000 indicated by Bayer*.

Lawyers are still helping those who suffered a Yaz DVT, Pulmonary Embolism, Stroke or Blood Clot after taking the birth control. Anyone affected is urged to contact the Drug Risk Resource Center or speak with a lawyer about their legal options.

Due to the specialized nature of federal MDL drug injury litigation, DrugRisk cautions that patients should seek a lawyer with experience in defective drug litigation, and only recommends lawyers and law firms who have already settled Yaz lawsuits.

For more information on the research, side effects and litigation news related to Yaz and other drugs, or to speak with a lawyer, visit http://www.DrugRisk.com.

*JPML 5/15/13; jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending%20MDL%20Dockets_By%20District_May-14-2013.pdf

**BMJ, 10/25/11; ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22027398

***FDA, 10/27/11, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM277384.pdf

****Bayer 2/28/13; annualreport2012.bayer.com/en/legal-risks.aspx







1,097 Cases Pending in the NuvaRing Multidistrict Litigation: Now, AttorneyOne Can Provide Advice


San Diego, CA (PRWEB) May 10, 2013

AttorneyOne.com, a recognized authority on law, updated the website recently and they are now actively providing expert opinion in view of the recent news on NuvaRing Lawsuit.

According to court data updated on March 5, 2013, by the US Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL), there are 1,097 actions pending in the NuvaRing MDL (MDL 1964, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri). NuvaRing is a popular internal birth control device, a vaginal ring placed near the cervix that was approved by the FDA in 2001. All of the lawsuits concern similar allegations that blood clots from NuvaRing caused women to suffer injuries including pulmonary embolism, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or sudden death.

On February 12, 2013 more than 30 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in California Central District Court (case no. 2:2013cv01035) alleging they suffered severe injuries, including death, from NuvaRing.

Taking into consideration the latest developments, AttorneyOne.com updated the website and, now, can actively provide an expert opinion including how to get in contact with legal counsel easily and inexpensively in case of alleged NuvaRing severe complications. Sean Burke, director of Media Relations at AttorneyOne.com, adds that the relevant information illustrates that people continue to file Nuva Ring lawsuits. “For that reason”, he continues, “our focus should squarely fall on getting the word out and assisting people in finding the right legal assistance.

A study published on May 10, 2012 in the British Medical Journal, revealed that non-oral contraceptives, including NuvaRing, have a higher risk of blood clots than combined oral contraceptives (COCs) based on oestrogens and progestins.

AttorneyOne.com has further information on NuvaRing lawsuits including how to get in contact with legal counsel.

Headquartered in San Diego, CA Attorney One was founded in 2004 and is not a law firm. They offer a nationwide legal service which helps consumers find the best representation for their legal needs. You can learn more about Attorney One at our website http://www.attorneyone.com. You can also find us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/AttorneyOne. Checkout earlier news from us at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10714476.htm







2013 Cases Involving Pradaxa Internal Bleeding Problem Allegations Now Being Investigated by Resource4thePeople Lawyers

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) March 29, 2013

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivedrugs/pradaxa-lawsuits.html

Resource4thePeople announced today that its attorneys are now accepting cases from consumers who allegedly may have suffered serious health problems as a result of their use of the popular blood thinner Pradaxa.

Our lawyers are now available for free consultations in which those consumers who have been contacting us about their legal rights can be informed about their eligibility to seek compensation over alleged internal bleeding problems involving the use of Pradaxa, said Resource4thePeople.

This response comes in reaction to the increasing number of inquiries that we have been receiving from consumers concerned about the possibility of serious health side effects such as internal bleeding that may have occurred as a result of using the medication Pradaxa.”

Resource4thePeople has been following the progress of Pradaxa claims that the federal court system has now classified as a Pradaxa multidistrict litigation* in which cases from across the country are being consolidated.

“We will be informing consumers about whether they may be eligible to join in this multidistrict litigation which is now under the supervision of a single judge in Illinois,” said Resource4thePeople.

The latest news involving these consolidated lawsuits* has been the scheduling of what is called a status conference before the federal judge in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Illinois.

This conference has been set for April 15 and lawyers for Pradaxa and those for the plaintiffs who are claiming to have suffered serious internal bleeding problems will inform the judge about the progress of the litigation.

Although the first trials in the consolidated cases are not scheduled until September of 2014 there are numerous hearings such as this in which legal questions about pre-trial evidence-gathering and other issues are litigated.

The Pradaxa plaintiffs, according to the court file,* are seeking compensation for wrongful deaths, medical costs, pain and suffering and other expenses if they can prove their claims.

Multidistrict litigations are so designated by the federal court system when a large number of cases involving similar allegations are brought under the supervision of a single judge for pre-trial evidence gathering and other legal procedures.

That judge may set bellwether trials, in which both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ lawyers test the strengths and weaknesses of their cases, and may also eventually designated the litigation as a massive class-action.

“One of the inquiries we are repeatedly receiving is whether it is too late to file a lawsuit that could be part of this multi-district litigation,” said Resource4thePeople spokesman William Howell. “The answer, in the overwhelming number of cases, is no.”

“The federal judge in the case has not issued any order prohibiting additional claims being filed and, in his most recent ruling, found that plaintiffs’ lawyers will be granted access to documents they were seeking, which means there will still be additional time before any trial is held,” Howell said.

The current litigation before U.S. District Court Judge David R. Herndon involves allegations, according to the complaints, that Pradaxa can cause serious internal bleeding problems which can lead to heart attacks and brain hemorrhages.*

Pradaxas manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, has denied the claims that have been filed against them in the litigation, including allegations contained in the complaints that the company was negligent by failing to adequately warn health care professionals and patients about bleeding side effects.*

According to allegations in the Pradaxa multi-district litigation, the drug was approved by the FDA in 2010 as an improvement over another blood-thinner, warfarin, for patients vulnerable to atrial fibrillation.

Plaintiffs in the Pradaxa multi-district litigation are claiming that in cases of internal bleeding there is an antidote for warfarin but there is no antidote for Pradaxa and that in some cases deaths have occurred.

There are currently over 150 lawsuits according to Bloomberg News,** which also recently reported that Pradaxa has been linked to more than 500 U.S. deaths over a two-year period.**

Bloomberg also reported that Concerns about Pradaxas safety surfaced soon after U.S. doctors began prescribing it. FDA officials said they received reports of 542 deaths and 3,781 side-effect incidents tied to the drug in 2011.**

Resource4thePeople also is advising consumers who may have been or are being treated with Pradaxa that the FDA recently issued a Drug Safety Communication warning that the medication should not be used in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves.***

In the communication the FDA also noted a previously released Drug Safety Communication about the risk of serious bleeding associated with the use of Pradaxa in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, the population for which the drug is approved.

Sources:


MDL No. 2385, IN RE: Pradaxa Product Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
** http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/boehringer-sued-by-hundreds-over-bleeding-tied-to-pradaxa.html

***http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugSafetyPodcasts/ucm333209.htm

12-12-11/boehringer-sued-by-hundreds-over-bleeding-tied-to-pradaxa.html

***http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/DrugSafetyPodcasts/ucm333209.htm







Leading Pharmacy Law Plaintiffs Firm Gilman Law LLP Alerts Consumers to Recent Supreme Court Ruling Severely Limiting Their Rights in Defective Drug and Pharmaceutical Cases


Boston, MA (PRWEB) March 20, 2013

Leading pharmacy law and defective drugs plaintiffs law firm Gilman Law LLP is representing individuals in product liability claims involving defective drug side effects and dangerous medical devices, and is alerting consumers to recent and impending Supreme Court decisions that may greatly limit their rights to pursue compensation for any injuries caused by generic drug side effects. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Pliva v. Mensing that federal law pre-empts state failure-to-warn laws that impose a duty or liability on generic drug makers to warn the public of dangerous side effects. The effect of the decision has prevented victims of generic drug injuries from pursuing failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers regardless of the merits of such a claim. [Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011)]

The defective drug and products liability law firm of Gilman Law LLP can provide a free legal consultation with no cost or obligation to individuals that have been injured by a defective drug or defective medical device. Contact our defective drug lawyers TOLL FREE at 888-252-0048 or submit a free legal consultation form online.

The Supreme Courts Upcoming Decision May Limit Consumer Rights

On March 18th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in another generic drug case, Bartlett v. Mutual Pharm. Co., Inc. According to Ken Gilman of Gilman Law, LLP, “Depending on the Courts decision in Bartlett, consumers could lose additional rights to recover for the victims of generic drug injuries.” Unfortunately, most consumers are not aware of the Mensing or Bartlett decisions, or that they may not be able to recover for injuries against generic drug manufacturers according to Gilman Law. (Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 12-142.)

In response to this news, Gilman Law continues to offer free case evaluations for the following drugs and medical devices: