Articles Posted in Multidistrict Litigation

Choosing an Out of State Product Liability Lawyer
So should you hire an out of state attorney? This is a question many people must answer, including those injured by a failed medical device or a prescription drug. I have had several clients who were initially skeptical about hiring an attorney who practiced 500 or 2,000 miles away. And I get it.

For many types of cases, choosing an attorney in your hometown or in your state is best. Do you need to set up a will with powers of attorney? Ask around and call the good lawyer who lives down the street or across town. Going through a divorce? Have a traffic ticket? Did someone breach a contract? Find someone in your city who comes highly recommended.

But what about product liability? Specifically, what about medical device or prescription drug cases? You need to find the right person to represent you, even if that person practices law in another state or across the country. Let’s look at some pros and cons of hiring an out of state product liability lawyer:

A few weeks ago I wrote about an Androgel testosterone case being tried in Illinois. We now have the verdict, and the result is, well, a mixed bag. Still, on balance, it must be viewed as a win for plaintiffs, and a major rebuke for companies like AbbVie, Inc. who aggressively market their prescription drugs for off-label uses. After all, at the end of trial the jury awarded the plaintiffs $150 million in punitive damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Androgel testosterone trial
Just to recap, Androgel is a roll-on testosterone product. Jesse Mitchell began taking Androgel in 2007 after doctors ran blood tests and found that Mitchell’s testosterone levels were quite low. In 2012, at the age of 49, Jesse Mitchell had a massive heart attack. From what I’ve read, the heart attack almost killed him.

Mitchell and his wife sued AbbVie in 2014, claiming the company marketed and sold Androgel without properly warning men about the increased risk for heart attacks. During the trial an expert for the Mitchells testified that in his opinion there was a connection between Mitchell’s 2012 heart attack and his extended use of Androgel.

An important trial is taking place over testosterone in Illinois. As part of the testosterone prescription multidistrict litigation, manufacturer AbbVie, Inc. is defending itself against claims that Androgel, a roll-on testosterone product, caused the heart attack of Jesse Mitchell in 2012 after years of taking the prescription medication. Let’s take a look at that case:

Mitchell v. AbbVie Inc. (1:14-cv-09178) 

AbbVie's Androgel TestosteroneIn 2007 Jesse Mitchell visited his doctor complaining of a constellation of symptoms, including fatigue and depression. He was 44. The doctor ran tests, discovered low testosterone levels, and prescribed Androgel, an easy-to-use roll-on testosterone product manufactured and (aggressively) marketed by AbbVie, Inc. Mitchell applied the roll-on testosterone to his upper body for several years. In 2012, at the age of 49, he had a massive heart attack. From trial and media reports, the heart attack permanently damaged his heart and almost killed him.

SGLT2 Inhibitor Diabetes Drugs
Originally touted as a wonder drug, a new class of medications based on SGLT2 inhibitors promised to help those suffering from Type 2 diabetes by increasing their ability to lower and control their blood sugar, while also lowering body weight and blood pressure. Pharmaceutical companies were hoping that these new products could potentially become blockbuster drugs. Invokana and Farxiga are two examples of SGLT2 inhibitors.

But just a few years after the release of these drugs in the United States, the drug companies started facing stiff competition among themselves. Additionally, the public learned of the serious risks of taking SGLT2 inhibitors. The purpose of this blog post is to provide a quick overview of SGLT2 inhibitor drugs and the status of their litigation.

What Is a SGLT2 Inhibitor?

Diabetes Drug InvokanaDiabetes is an awful disease. It is a chronic condition that affects the way the body metabolizes sugar. Diabetes is also a growing health problem in the United States, with over 29 million Americans currently suffering from the disease. Of the newly diagnosed cases of diabetes in adults, approximately 95% are for Type 2 diabetes (sometimes referred to as adult onset). It’s also expected that one out of every three people will develop diabetes in their lifetimes.

Type 1 diabetes occurs when the human body doesn’t produce enough insulin, a hormone used to help the body absorb glucose. Type 2 diabetes occurs when the human body produces enough insulin, but cannot use insulin properly. Both types of diabetes result in high blood sugar levels which can cause long-term health problems.

What does all this mean? From the perspective of pharmaceutical companies, it means there is a huge market for Type 2 diabetes drugs.

Pregnant Woman Taking Zofran for NauseaZofran is an anti-nausea drug. It works to prevent nausea and vomiting by blocking the effects of serotonin, a chemical in the body that triggers nausea and vomiting. The drug was designed to help cancer patients dealing with the side effects of chemotherapy but it was also approved by the FDA for those suffering nausea due to radiation therapy, anesthesia and surgery. Nevertheless, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) eventually pushed to market and sell Zofran to pregnant women. Women who are pregnant are often plagued by morning sickness, and some can suffer from extreme nausea. The problem is, the FDA never approved the use of Zofran for pregnant women; it’s an “unapproved” use of the drug. Unfortunately, “off-label drug use” is very common. I wrote about off-label drug use and its potential dangers here.

By 2013, 110,000 monthly prescriptions of Zofran were issued to pregnant women. If this were an approved use, we could rest easier, as an approved use means the drug has been thoroughly tested and evaluated, with the determination backed up by “strong scientific data.” For unapproved uses there is none of that. If a drug is approved for any use, a doctor can then use his best judgment to prescribe the drug for any other purpose.

Continue reading

Depuy ASR Settlement Agreement ExtensionWe are getting more clarity on the recent extension of the Settlement Agreement in the Depuy ASR artificial hip litigation. As I wrote about in a previous post, the ASR Settlement has now been extended to cover people implanted with the Depuy ASR hip who received a revision surgery between January 31, 2015 and February 15, 2017. This is an important development because up to this point the Settlement did not include any injured people who had undergone revision surgery after January 31, 2015. And this represented a lot of people.

Last week the Depuy ASR MDL executive committees sent correspondence with more clarification of the extension agreement. To make things easy, I am going to refer to this Depuy ASR extension agreement as the “Third Settlement” (because it follows two prior Settlement Agreements which had clearly defined terms and clearly defined deadlines).

Third Settlement Enrollment Deadlines

Stryker LFIT V40 Artificial Hip MDL
We’ve previously blogged about Stryker LFIT V40 artificial hip problems, discussing a recall made back in August 2016 and how to tell if you have an artificial hip that’s part of that recall. Since those posts a lot has been going on in courthouses across the country, with dozens of lawsuits popping up from individuals who received affected artificial hips made by Striker Orthopaedics and its subsidiary, Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (HOC).

Just recently, approximately 33 pending lawsuits against HOC were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). In a way, you can think of this consolidation as a “things just got real” moment for HOC. But what’s the big deal about the Stryker LFIT V40 litigation now being in MDL status? Let’s begin by discussing the underlying lawsuits.

Why Are the Plaintiffs Suing?

Fosamax user with broken femur
Osteoporosis is a disease where the human body’s bones become weaker. It is a common issue with women who have gone through menopause. The drug company Merck developed a drug called Fosamax (alendronate) hoping to prevent and treat osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

As with all other drugs, Fosamax had side effects, one of which was actually increasing the risk of femoral (thigh) bone fractures. Thousands of users of Fosamax suffered this side effect and sued Merck.

Even though there were a lot of plaintiffs suing, many of their cases became consolidated into a multi-district litigation, or MDL, in New Jersey.

ViagraThe Viagra litigation is ramping up. Last April the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) created a multidistrict litigation site in the Northern District of California for lawsuits alleging injury against Pfizer from the use of Viagra. Since then, the Viagra lawsuits have piled up in California federal court.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Viagra (sildenafil citrate) for sale in 1998. It set out to fix an intimate and unhappy problem: erectile dysfunction. One study indicated that thirty million men may suffer from erectile dysfunction. And it worked (I’ve heard). Millions of men standing on the sidelines were back in the game.

The reason I know it worked is because Viagra’s manufacturer, Pfizer, Inc., sold $1.8 billion dollars worth of the drug in 2013. Pfizer has self-reported that it has prescribed Viagra to 35 million men. All over the country and all over the world, those 30th wedding anniversary weekends were suddenly a lot more fun. And that’s a wonderful thing.

Continue reading

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I was involved in a case for the faulty hip replacements. Clay Hodges represented me. I can't say enough about how much he has helped me. Clay was able to win multiple settlements on my behalf with most of them being the maximum amount able to be awarded. Matt J.
★★★★★
Clay, thank you sir for making a disheartening experience at least palatable, you and your staff were honest, caring and understanding through the entire process of my wife’s hip replacements, while monetary settlements never make the pain and suffering end, it sometimes is the only way people can fight back to right a wrong. J. V.
★★★★★
We are absolutely pleased with how Clay Hodges handled my husband’s hip replacement claim. He always kept us informed of the progress. And, his work resulted in a settlement which we are extremely pleased. Thank you, Clay! Carol L. & Norm L.
Contact Information