Actos Bladder Cancer Allegations Trial Breakdown: Resource4thePeople Reports Specific Findings of Jury Verdict Returned against Takeda Pharmaceuticals
Court documents show details of jury award of $1.7 million but damages overturned by judge who found extensive tobacco link. Resource4thePeople will continue offer of free consultations to consumers seeking compensation over bladder cancer allegations.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) October 24, 2013
Resource4thePeople today announced its analysis of a Maryland jury's award* of $1.7 million to the family of a man who alleged that his use of Actos caused him to die of bladder cancer.
The analysis is the latest update for consumers who have been following the litigation in state and federal courts across the country over allegations that the type II diabetes medication can have life-threatening side effects.
"We have reviewed the details of the jury's verdict and now broken down the financial damages that it awarded in the case in finding against Takeda Pharmaceuticals," said Resource4thePeople.
"The judge did overturn the verdict on the grounds that the victim's 30-year smoking habit contributed to his death but the figures nevertheless provide an insight into what value jurors may place over claims made by such victims."
According to the court file in the case here is the breakdown of the damages:
- $330,000 for noneconomic damages
- $295,000 for medical expenses
- Each of three children were awarded $200,000
- The victim's widow was awarded $540,000 for loss of consortium.
"As is evident from the breakdown of damages juries in such cases can attach large amounts of damages to victims of such allegations or their survivors," said Resource4thePeople.
"It will be interesting to see the results in future trials that will be selected from the thousands of lawsuits in which plaintiffs claim that Actos caused bladder cancer and out national network of lawyers will continue to offer free consultations to consumers as this litigation plays out."
Bloomberg News reported Sept. 26, 2013 that Takeda Pharmaceuticals, which is Asia's largest drug manufacturer, has been named in "more than 3,000 suits over the drug."**
Over 2,500 of these Actos lawsuits*** are part of what is called a federal multidistrict litigation that have been assigned to a U.S. District Court judge in Louisiana who has scheduled a bellwether case to be held in January.
Resource4thePeople also is announcing that the number of cases involved in the Louisiana multidistrict litigation has climbed to 2,587, according to the latest figures provided by federal court officials.****
The federal consolidated lawsuits were assigned to U.S. District Judge Rebecca F. Doherty after she was chosen by a national federal panel of judges to oversee pre-trial evidence-gathering and legal procedures in the litigation and possibly eventually decide whether to grant the litigation class-action status.
The Maryland case was the second this year in which a jury found in favor of a plaintiff alleging that Takeda Pharmaceuticals — the medication's manufacturer — was liable over bladder cancer but had the damages overturned on legal technicalities, according to court documents.
The Maryland case was preceded by one in California where a jury found in April that Takeda should pay $6.5 million in damages over similar allegations, according to the court file in that case.*****
"In two cases involving serious allegations that Takeda failed to properly warn patients and doctors about the drug’s links to bladder cancer juries have returned verdicts in favor of the victims," said Resource4thePeople.
"We are following the progress of this litigation and will continue to provide regular updates to consumers affected by these allegations from the court dockets and from the trials that are unfolding," said Resource4thePeople.
The Bloomberg News report cited important facts about the Maryland case:
"A Maryland jury ruled that Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. (4502) didn’t properly warn an ex-U.S. Army translator and his doctor about the risks of its Actos diabetes drug and ordered the company to pay more than $1.7 million in damages. A judge immediately threw out the verdict.
"Jurors in state court in Baltimore deliberated more than six hours over two days before finding Asia’s largest drugmaker liable for the cancer death of Diep An, Michael Miller, one of An’s lawyers, said in an interview. Since jurors also found that An contributed to his death by smoking for 30 years, Judge Brooke Murdock set the verdict aside based on Maryland law."
Concerns about Actos were raised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 15, 2011 after the agency staff reviewed a Takeda-sponsored study which documented an increased risk of developing bladder cancer with Actos than other diabetes drugs.******
Here is part of the safety announcement:
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is informing the public that use of the diabetes medication Actos (pioglitazone) for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Information about this risk will be added to the Warnings and Precautions section of the label for pioglitazone-containing medicines. The patient Medication Guide for these medicines will also be revised to include information on the risk of bladder cancer.”
Resource4thePeople also reports that India has now banned the sale of the medication out of concerns for consumer safety as detailed****** in the June 27, 2013 edition of The Times of India, the national newspaper, which wrote:
“In the case of pioglitazone too, France has already taken it off the shelves, while in the US it is sold with a boxed warning. The warning emphasizes that it may cause or worsen heart failure, and its use for over a year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer.”
*An v. Nieberlein, Case # 24-C12003565, Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, State of Maryland
***In Re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation, MDL2299 U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana
*****Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., Case #CGC-12-518535, California Superior Court, Los Angeles
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11254963.htm