Month: April 2017

J&J, Bayer faces the first Xarelto jury trial over bleeding risks

The first federal trial over the bleeding risks of Xarelto, Johnson & Johnson and Bayer’s blockbuster anticoagulant, kicks off next week, with 18,000 more cases stacked up behind it. It will be the initial indicator of whether juries are likely to side with the drugmakers, ruling that their med is safe and effective, or patients, who claim the two companies hid the real risks of the blood thinner.

The case in New Orleans was brought by Joseph Boudreaux, who took the drug to cut his stroke risk but claims it caused internal bleeding that caused heart problems and resulted in a visit to intensive care unit for a week, the Chicago Tribune reported.

In their defense, J&J and Bayer point out that the FDA has deemed the drug safe and effective and that the risks it holds are clearly laid out on its label.

J&J, Bayer accused of hiding Xarelto’s dangers, now face 18,000 lawsuits

Joseph Boudreaux says taking Johnson & Johnson’s blood-thinning drug Xarelto was one of the biggest mistakes of his life.

While Xarelto was supposed to help cut his stroke risk, Boudreaux says it instead caused internal bleeding that required a week-long hospital stay in the intensive-care unit, several blood transfusions and multiple heart procedures. “I don’t want anybody else to suffer like I have from that drug,” the part-time security guard says.

Starting Monday, Boudreaux will get a chance to have jurors hold J&J and Bayer, which jointly developed Xarelto, responsible for the treatment’s potentially fatal side effects as his case in New Orleans becomes the first lawsuit targeting the medicine to go to trial.

The companies are facing more than 18,000 U.S. patient suits blaming the blood thinner for internal bleeding. The medicine also has been linked to at least 370 deaths, according to Food and Drug Administration reports.

Fen Phen Update: Pondimin and Redux Claims Are Still Being Filed and Paid

Fen Phen lawyer Cynthia K. Garrett reports that worsened injury claims may still be filed for those who took the diet drugs Pondimin or Redux, registered with the AHP Settlement Trust by May 3, 2003, established the required baseline injury during the Screening Period that ended in 2003, did not participate in the Seventh Amendment Supplemental Fund, and currently qualify for a Matrix Compensation Level and dollar value above any previous award received.

Garrett explained, “Whether you can still file a claim depends upon the nature and extent of your injury, when your worst injury was first diagnosed, and what has previously been filed in your case. The criteria you must meet to file a claim today is discussed at length on my website, CKGLawFim.com. I’ve provided you with a quick summary below.”

Who Can Still File A Claim:

Qualifying injuries must have been diagnosed prior to your 80th birthday.
If you opted-out of the 7th Amendment and have not yet received Matrix Compensation benefits, and you can show that any matrix level condition was present before December 31, 2015, you may file an Original Claim for Matrix Compensation.

If you have already received Matrix Compensation and did not participate in the 7th Amendment Supplemental Fund you may file a Supplemental Claim if you have been diagnosed with a medical condition that qualifies for a Matrix Compensation Level and dollar value above any previous Matrix Compensation award you have received.

If you participated in the 7th Amendment Supplemental Fund the deadline for filing a claim has expired.
Deadlines:
The deadline for filing a Matrix Compensation claim with the AHP Settlement Trust is four years from the date you were first diagnosed as having the last occurring condition or event upon which the claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits is based.

Qualifying Injuries:
According to Garrett, some of the medical conditions that qualify

Merck seeks to reverse ruling reviving Fosamax injury lawsuits

Merck & Co Inc is urging a U.S. appeals court to reconsider a ruling that revived hundreds of lawsuits accusing the company of failing to adequately warn about the risks of thigh bone fractures associated with its osteoporosis drug Fosamax.

In papers filed on Wednesday, Merck asked the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to grant a rehearing by the three-judge panel that issued the March 22 ruling or for a rehearing by the full 14-judge court.

* Word-Use Disclaimer

Legal funding is not a loan. It is the non-recourse purchase of an equitable lien in a plaintiffs’ legal claim. Words such as ‘loans,’ ‘lending,’ ‘borrow,’ etc., are used for search and marketing purposes only.
More info

TriMark Legal Funding LLC
1056 Green Acres Rd #102
Eugene, OR 97408