Update on Pradaxa Internal Bleeding Problem Allegations Lawsuits; Resource4thePeople Reports Bellwether Trial Dates Scheduled
Pradaxa manufacturer also granted more time to produce documents. Resource4thePeople national network of lawyers says there is still time for consumers who may have suffered alleged internal bleeding problems from use of Pradaxa to seek free legal consultations.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) May 12, 2013
Resource4thePeople announced today its latest consumer update involving federal court lawsuits involving allegations that the use of the popular blood thinner Pradaxa may cause internal bleeding problems.
There have been two important recent developments, including an order by the federal judge overseeing this multidistrict litigation* scheduling a series of bellwether, or test trials that will begin later this year.
The court docket* also shows that Judge David R. Herndon has issued an order granting attorneys for Boehringer Ingelheim, the manufacturer of Pradaxa, more time to produce documents sought by the plaintiffs in the litigation.
“These are important developments in the case because they show that the judge is working to move this litigation forward in order to produce the evidence for trials in which juries will decide the merits of these allegations,” said Resource4thePeople.
“In response to questions we have been receiving from consumers, the fact that trials have been scheduled does not prevent anyone who has suffered alleged bleeding incidents from the use of Pradaxa to file their own lawsuit while this litigation moves forward.”
Resource4thePeople’s national network of lawyers will continue to be available for free consultations in which consumers can be informed about their eligibility to seek compensation over alleged internal bleeding problems involving the use of Pradaxa.
According to the court docket in this multidistrict litigation, Judge Herndon has scheduled the first set of bellwether trials for August 11, 2014, November 3, 2014, January 5, 2015 and February 16, 2015 and designated these as “Early Trial Cases.”
The lawsuits in this multidistrict litigation were grouped together by federal court officials according to the court file* because they involve common allegations that patients suffered serious internal bleeding problems.
The patients seeking compensation for the medical costs and other expenses they allege they have incurred as a result of using Pradaxa to protect against strokes and heart attacks, according to the court file.
Resource4thePeople is also informing consumers who may be affected by this litigation that the federal court system shows that the number of Pradaxa lawsuits claiming internal bleeding problems has climbed to at least 280 cases.**
Resource4thePeople also will continue to update consumers about the important developments in the Pradaxa multidistrict litigation in which cases from across the country have been consolidated.
“We will be available to answer questions from 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.
In scheduling the bellwether trials, Judge Herndon also outlined the allegations that will be included in the selection of the individual cases. Among the criteria he listed on the court docket in his April 9, 2013 order are:
- Excluded Injuries. Plaintiffs, if any, alleging Myocardial Infarction shall be excluded as Discovery Plaintiffs and from Early Trial Cases, because the alleged injury is not representative of the filed case pool.
- Death Cases. No more than three (3) Discovery Plaintiffs chosen by each side shall involve an alleged death related to Pradaxa use.
- Gastrointestinal Bleeding. At least five (5) Discovery Plaintiffs chosen by each side shall contain an allegation related to gastrointestinal bleeding.
- Traumatic Injury. Neither party shall select more than two (2) Discovery Plaintiffs alleging that a traumatic injury was exacerbated by Pradaxa use.
- Prior Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and/or Prior Stroke. No party shall select more than one (1) case in which the plaintiff suffered a TIA and/or stroke prior to taking Pradaxa.
“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. “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.”
Pradaxa´s 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.
Bloomberg News, 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 Pradaxa´s 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.****
- MDL No. 2385, IN RE: Pradaxa Product Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2013/5/prweb10723577.htm