The Philadelphia Xarelto mass tort seems to be edging closer to the trial stage, and as this is happening, Bayer AG and Janssen Pharmaceuticals have hinted they want to know who are third-party lawsuit funding are. There are people providing lawsuit funding against the companies. The defendants want to know who are the people funding the plaintiffs in the Xarleto lawsuits.
Janssen and Bayer filed a motion in April. The motion was requesting the court to compel discovery in regards to third-party lawsuit funding. The motion, filed with the Philadelphia Court of Common Peas, was filed at the beginning of April.
Bellwether cases in the lawsuit have been placed on a shortlist. Defendants now want to know more about third-party ligation funding. They would like to find out more details before the selection of bellwether cases for the trials.
As of now, there are around 1,200 cases on the tort docket. However, 24 cases have qualified for bellwether status. The defendants in the case feel that in order to determine which cases on the shortlist will be tried first, then they should know who is providing the lawsuit funding.
Xarelto arrived on the market as an alternative to Warfarin, which is a well-known blood-thinner that has considered being the gold-standard. Xarelto has been proven to be effective at helping prevent blood clots and stroke in older patients. The downside of Warfarin is that strict dieting is required and there are other factors that are required in order for patients to remain in a safe zone and to avoid bleeding events, as well as serious hemorrhages.
The FDA approved Xarelto as an alternative to Warfarin, and it did not require the same amount of monitoring that Warfarin required. This is one of the reasons why the drug was touted as an effective alternative to Warfarin. It was also touted as an easier and safe alternative to Warfarin.
However, the side effects associated with Xarelto have caused a lot of problems for many people and the drug was brought to the market without an agent to reverse the thinning properties of the drug. With an infusion of Vitamin K, Warfarin can be reversed, but Xarelto doesn’t respond to Vitamin K infusions. This has led to serious issues, such as bleeding complications and there have been some deaths reported.
Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of the drug claimed that it didn’t require the same extent of monitoring that is required with Warfarin, but given the lack of an agent to reverse the drug’s effects, it seems that Xarelto does require a lot of monitoring. Plaintiffs also claim that the manufacturers knew that the drug couldn’t be reversed in the same manner as Warfarin, and if they knew this information, then they wouldn’t have taken the drug. Some plaintiffs said they would have consented to Xarelto if they knew.
The request to find out who is funding the plaintiffs’ lawsuits is a new trend, and the defendants said the motion was filed because they need to understand the context of the selection of bellwether cases and it is in the interest of an orderly processed. The defendants also said it may help determine if the individuals or entities have a stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. In other words, part of the reason is because the defendants want to know if any lawsuit funding has something to gain.
Lawyers represented the plaintiffs countered, saying the requests were broad. They said that it reaches into the territory of attorney-client privilege. As of now, it’s not clear if the defendants’ request will be approved or denied.
After the latest multi-billion dollar Pradaxa litigation settlement, sufferers who experienced bleeding injuries while using the anticoagulant Xarelto may question whether they have a legitimate claim. There are more than 300 xarelto litigations
being placed in multidistrict lawsuit and much more Xarelto unwanted side effects legal cases being filed, litigants might be pardoned for thinking if xarelto litigation may ultimately match Pradaxa lawsuit. You will find resemblances: both medicines were associated with similar unwanted side effects and face similar failure-to-warn accusations. But while Pradaxa lawsuit was largely moved in 2014, xarelto litigation is now on-going.
Both Xarelto and Pradaxa are the latest generation anticoagulants, promoted to be top-quality options to warfarin. Warfarin (known through the brand of Coumadin) is still available on the market for many years to avoid thrombus and strokes, but requires blood monitoring to make sure patients remain in the therapeutic range. These latest anticoagulants are promoted as not needing blood supervising.
The problem is, however, the lack of a remedy associated with these modern anticoagulants. Anticoagulants prevent bloodstream from clots and great in stopping thrombus and strokes, but harmful for other bleeding issues. Inability of the blood to clot causes it to be harder to prevent bleeding, which means patients taking anticoagulants face a danger of severe bleeding problems. Warfarin comes with an antidote by means of vitamin k supplement. These latest anticoagulants don’t have a broadly recognized antidote, which means once patients using the drugs start bleeding, they can be vulnerable to severe health issues.
Xarelto litigation filed against Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceutical drugs claims the companies fully understood or must have been aware of the chance of serious bleeding occasions, but didn’t correctly alert patients that there is no recognized antidote to Xarelto.
Boehringer Ingelheim, the manufacturer of Pradaxa, encountered around 9,000 legal cases alleging patients were hurt or died consequently of severe bleeding periods from the drug. On May 2014, Boehringer Ingelheim decided to settle nearly 4,000 claims in condition and federal courts for approximately $650 million.
Today another oral blood thinner, Xarelto (rivaroxaban), has also been associated with serious unwanted effects. Numerous legal cases happen to be filed, declaring injuries associated with the pill including critical internal bleeding. While Xarelto isn’t just like Pradaxa, research conducted recently came to the conclusion, patients supplied with both NOACs come with an elevated chance of intestinal bleeding in comparison to patients supplied with warfarin.
Meanwhile, patients and medical researchers should cautiously consider the potential risks and compensation of Xarelto litigation by taking such new anticoagulants.