J&J, Bayer Try to Bar Master Xarelto Lawsuit
Defendants concerned about the fallout of a Xarelto lawsuit are asking a Pennsylvania judge to bar a complaint. The master complaint is part of a mass tort program regarding the popular blood-thinner.
Many patients who have used the medication report serious side effects and claim they were never told by the company or their doctors about the risks. A high risk of internal bleeding is a common issue raised in many current Xarelto lawsuits.
The bellwether trials, or those that are likely to set the tone for the future, are scheduled for next month. Johnson & Johnson and Bayer AG, however, want a federal judge to bar the complaint because it has been substantially amended.
The new amended complaint in the Xarelto lawsuit includes nearly 1,700 cases of patients who argue they’ve been injured by the drug. The defendants say that the complaint, as it currently stands, would block them from being able to put together a fair defense. The defendants claim they had already completed depositions and prepared multiple documents and strategies based on the initial pleading they believed to be final.
The mass tort program for each lawsuit is currently consolidated in Philadelphia County. The cases all have to do with a high risk of internal bleeding. That mass tort program was created in 2015 to avoid duplicate issues and documents being generated in the discovery and trial process..
In typical mass tort programs for consolidation, the first cases to be heard can say a lot about how the issues raised in the claims will be interpreted. At the request of both sides, the judge ultimately held off on making a ruling at the moment.
The claims in each lawsuit state that the companies responsible for the drug knew about the high risks of internal bleeding and failed to warn consumers or the medical community about the dangers.
Many of those patients now know that the drug is potentially dangerous without dosage monitoring and adjustments made by doctors.
An initial Xarelto lawsuit trial kicked off in 2016 and the result was a multi-million dollar award for the plaintiffs.
However, that was voided in a post-trial motion following doctor testimony that the physician would not have changed her opinion about prescribing the drug. Three of the next lawsuits will go to trial in April.
The plaintiffs allege they are well within their rights to revise the complaint. According to them, the new pleading would provide more details about the cases and reorganize the allegations.
The defandants, however, argued that many pages were added to the new complaint and all previous preparation had been based on that document.
The defendants say that the pleading was already lengthy prior to the amendments and believe that the adjustments made are an attempt to alter the liability theory already laid as the groundwork in the case.
The defendants claim they would be prejudiced if required to move forward under the new amended complaint.
If you’ve suffered serious side effects, contact the attorneys at McDonald Worley today for a free case evaluation.
Disclaimer: McDonald Worley is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.