Lawsuit Update Center

This week the MDL Judge in the Paragard IUD lawsuits will consider a motion to dismiss filed by the manufacturers of the defective birth control device. The Paragard MDL has grown to include over 500 individual cases by plaintiffs alleging that their Paragard IUD fractured during removal resulting in severe pain and sometimes emergency surgery to remove the broken pieces inside their uterus.

About the Paragard Lawsuits

The Paragard is an intrauterine device (IUD) used for birth control. It is a small plastic device shaped like a Y with a copper coil around the center. The device is inserted at the base of the uterus where is provides continuous protection against pregnancy for up to 10 years. The Paragard was designed to be easily removed at the doctor’s office.

Hundreds of farmers and agriculture workers have filed paraquat lawsuits alleging that their exposure to paraquat caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease. Back in June, a new Paraquat MDL was created and it already has around 200 pending cases. Last week, the MDL judge ordered all incoming plaintiffs to complete a Plaintiff’s Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ).

In this post, we will take a close look at the PAQ because it is essentially an outline of the key issues that will shape the paraquat litigation moving forward. It also gives prospective plaintiffs an idea of what type of facts they will need to support their case.

About the Paraquat Lawsuits

A lawsuit recently filed in the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey alleges that someone received stomach cancer because of taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) Prilosec, Nexium, and the variations of both drugs.

PPIs are used to treat many stomach conditions but can create even worse problems in the stomach as well. Before informing yourself about these lawsuits, you must first inform yourself on PPIs, specifically Nexium and Prilosec. You must also inform yourself about their potential side effects.

Continue Reading

Kugel hernia mesh lawsuits are settling, thanks in part to a change in defense counsel. The products, manufactured by Davol, are defective because the plastic ring can break off, causing perforation and infections. Left untreated, these injuries can be fatal. Davol has since eliminated the use of the plastic rings, in favor of a bio-absorbable ring.

Now represented by the New York firm Reed Smith, Davol has signaled a change in thinking to a more reasonable approach—these can be very meritorious cases worthy of settlement, and the expense of litigation is unnecessary. There are about 1,000 cases in the Rhode Island United States District Court MDL, and about 1,200 cases in Providence state court (the manufacturer, Davol, is a Rhode Island company). Right now, 4 federal suits have been settled, and one state claim has been settled. This looks to be the tip of the iceberg, as the parties move toward the first scheduled federal court trial in March 2010. That will be followed shortly thereafter by the first state court case in June 2010. The settlements will probably come in rapid numbers, now that discovery is coming to a close and the trials quickly approach.

For more on Kugel Mesh lawsuits and settlements, see our prior blog post.

The FDA is now requiring the makers of two prescription topical testosterone gel products to include a boxed warning on the labels. The move comes after reports of inadvertent exposure to eight children, aged nine months to five years. The drug is topically applied on the shoulders, arms, or abdomen. When transferred to children through secondary exposure (for example, children touching skin covered in the gel), the drug can cause enlargement of the genitalia, premature development of pubic hair, advanced bone age, and aggressive behavior.

The manufacturers of these products, Solvay Pharmaceuticals (AndroGel 1%) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals (Testim 1%), already warn against exposure to the drug by children; however, the black box warning will enhance the visibility of the warning on the package inserts. Black box warnings are among the strongest safety measures the FDA can take, being reserved for medications with serious or life-threatening dangers.

There’s nothing to indicate that the companies did anything wrong—the dangers of secondary exposure are clearly noted in PDR guides, which warn against allowing others to come into contact with gel-covered skin. And of course, doctors who prescribe the medication should warn their patients about these risks.