Category Archives: Products Liability

The basis of a Crestor lawsuit

Crestor or rosuvastatin calcium is a cholesterol reducing drug from the statin group. It has been approved by The Food and Drug Administration as the strongest medication of its class. Since then it was largely used as it is believed to reduce the level of bad cholesterol with up to 50%, especially if combined with a healthy diet and exercises... To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Products Liability | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Millions of Actos Patients Show: Risk of Bladder Cancer Significant

What do more than 1,000,000 diabetes patients have in common? They were all prescribed Actos (pioglitazone) and participated in a wide-ranging study which definitively showed that the medication designed to protect them from the risks of diabetes exposed them to fatal risks of bladder cancer. The study found that when taken beyond one year, Actos patients experienced a considerable spike in the likelihood that their pioglitazone treatments would cause cancer cells to develop in their bladder. These Actos findings led the FDA to issue a disconcerting warning this summer as well as leading countries to ban Actos all together. Has your physician spoken to you about the risks associated with your Actos prescription? If you remain unaware about the risks of Actos, the time to learn about them is now! Fortunately for the victims of Actos, the leading attorneys at Fears Nachawati are preparing a lawsuit designed to protect their rights. If you suffer from Actos-related injuries, including bladder cancer, you should contact our experts immediately. For your free consultation, call us at 1.866.545.8364 or email mn@fnlawfirm.com... To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Products Liability | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FDA Prevails in 10th Circuit Unapproved Morphine Sulfate Case; Court Does Not Reach Merits of Grandfather Claim

By Kurt R. Karst – In a decision handed down late last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a three-judge panel affirmed a November 2010 decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming granting FDA's Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit brought by Cody Laboratories, Inc. and Lannett Co., Inc. (collectively "Cody/Lannett") concerning the alleged grandfather status of Cody/Lannett's marketed unapproved Morphine Sulfate Solution. The Circuit Court also dismissed as moot Cody/Lannett's claim of disparate treatment at FDA concerning the same drug submitted under an NDA. The Cody/Lannett lawsuit stems from FDA's March 2009 Warning Letters to Cody and Lannett (among other companies) to stop manufacturing certain unapproved narcotic drugs, including morphine sulfate oral solutions. At that time, FDA concluded that marketed unapproved morphine sulfate products are "new drugs [under the FDCA] and not grandfathered and that manufacturing and marketing of these products without an approved application constituted a violation of the Act." In subsequent communications with Cody/Lannett, FDA stated that the Agency would exercise enforcement discretion with regard to the shipment and distribution of Cody's/Lannett's unapproved Morphine Sulfate Solution until July 24, 2010, which is 180 days after FDA approved Roxane's NDA for the drug product. Meanwhile, in late February 2010, Lannett submitted its own NDA (NDA No. 201517) to FDA for Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution, 100 mg per 5 mL (20 mg per mL), which NDA was not granted a 6-month priority review as was Roxane's NDA. Cody/Lannett sued FDA arguing that the Agency should be enjoined from taking enforcement action after July 24, 2010 if such enforcement action is based on the Agency's contention that Morphine Sulfate Solution Immediate-Release 20mg/mL is an unapproved "new drug," and that the court should issue a declaratory judgment that FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in determining that the product is a "new drug." Cody/Lannett raised three issues in the litigation: (1) FDA's alleged determination that Cody/Lannett's product is a "new drug;" (2) FDA's alleged failure to develop an administrative record for its determination that Cody/Lannett's Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution 20mg/mL product is a "new drug;" and (3) FDA's alleged disparate treatment of Cody/Lannett's standard review NDA compared to Roxane's priority review NDA. In a November 16, 2010 decision, District Court Judge Alan Johnson granted FDA's Motion to Dismiss the case, and ruled that the court "does not have jurisdiction over any of the agency actions [Cody/Lannett] ask this Court to review, as the FDA has yet to complete a final agency action," and that "[a]ny attempt to review such actions would be premature and contrary to law." Following Judge Johnson's decision, Cody/Lannett appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit. On June 23, 2011, FDA approved Lannett's NDA No. 201517. Not long after FDA approved NDA No. 201517, the Agency filed a Motion to Dismiss the Tenth Circuit case on mootness grounds, arguing that as a result of the approval of NDA No. 201517, "there is no likelihood that FDA will undertake enforcement action against Cody for marketing unapproved morphine sulfate, which is what Cody sought to prevent when it filed its complaint." Cody/Lannett opposed FDA's motion, arguing that the manufacture and sale of its morphine sulfate under an approved NDA will result in significant administrative and financial burdens (e.g., user fees) – see our previous post here. Moreover, says Cody/Lannett, "FDA could still pursue enforcement actions with respect to past sales of the Product." Thus, the grandfather status of Cody/Lannett's Morphine Sulfate drug product is not moot and is "still a live issue between the parties." Likewise, Cody/Lannett argue that their disparate treatment claims are also live and subject to judicial review, because, among other things, they are capable of repetition with other allegedly grandfathered products the companies manufacture and distribute (e.g., oxycodone and topical cocaine) and for which they reportedly plan to seek FDA approval. Although the Circuit Court, in affirming in part and dismissing in part the district court decision, agreed that the approval of NDA No. 201517 did not moot Cody/Lannett's grandfather drug claim, because "[b]y prevailing on its grandfathering claim, Cody could still obtain meaningful relief in the form of freedom from [certain user fee and labeling] burdens," the Court refused to reach the merits of Cody/Lannett's grandfather drug claim. Mootness aside, we cannot reach the merits of Cody's grandfathering claim unless the FDA has engaged in "final agency action" under the APA. . . . Cody's failure to avail itself of available administrative remedies [(i.e., use of the citizen petition process)] defeats its claim even if we were inclined to hold that the FDA's action [(i.e., Warning Letters)] were otherwise final. . . . Given that grandfathering status hinges on the fact-intensive history of the drug's marketing and use, we do not anticipate that the agency will blindly refuse to consider evidence submitted by Cody. Accordingly, we decline to consider Cody's grandfathering claim prior to exhaustion of the company's administrative remedies. And with respect to Cody/Lannett's claim of disparate treatment by FDA, the Court says that FDA's approval of NDA No. 201517 mooted the claim, stating that Article III does not permit the Court to issue a retrospective opinion that Cody/Lannett were harmed. "Nor does Cody's disparate treatment claim fall under the exception to the mootness doctrine for disputes that are capable of repetition, but evading review. To fit within that exception, a litigant must show a reasonable expectation that it would be subjected to the same adverse action in the future." Although Cody/Lannett say they plan to submit NDAs to FDA for certain allegedly grandfathered drugs, "Cody has not given us reason to expect that the agency will deny Cody's request for expedited review while granting that of its competitors. Thus, we conclude that Cody has not carried its burden of demonstrating its claim is capable of repetition, but evading review." Whether the Tenth Circuit's decision marks the end of this long-running dispute remains to be seen. Cody/Lannett could take further action in court or at FDA... To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Products Liability | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2011 NC State Fair E. coli Investigation Advances With Attendee Disease Survey

North Carolina's E. coli outbreak, which has sickened at least 25 people in seven counties, appears to be associated with attendance at the NC State Fair in Raleigh. State Epidemiologist Megan Davies says Fair attendance is the only identified common link. Davies is now surveying Fair attendees In order to identify specific activities at the Fair which may have been the source of illness. Her investigators need to interview people who attended the Fair but did not get sick and they will be calling some participants randomly to ask even more questions. National food safety law firm PritzkerOlsen, P.A., also is conducting an investigation for the purposes of an NC State Fair lawsuit. Whether children or adults contracted the potentially deadly bacteria from a common food source or from an animal exhibit, victims should be able to pursue fair claims for medical bills, lost time at work, pain and suffering and future harms that could follow them because of their infection. At least eight children are considered case patients in this outbreak and four of those children were hospitalized for kidney failure or other symptoms of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This is a life-threatening complication of E. coli O157:H7 infection that most often affects children under 5 but can even strike healthy adults of any age. NC State Fair E. coli Investigation The N.C. Division of Public Health reports that it is now investigating 25 cases related to the E. coli outbreak. Eight cases are confirmed E. coli cases; 17 cases are still being investigated. The latest numbers and counties involved: Wake – 12 Sampson – 7 Cleveland – 1 Durham – 1 Johnston – 1 Orange – 1 Wilson – 2 Escherichia coli are bacteria found in the feces of animals such as cattle, sheep and goats. Some types of E. coli bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7 can cause illness in people who consume water or food that has come in contact with the bacteria or who come in contact with infected animals. If people touch contaminated material, they can transfer the bacteria from their hands to their mouths, or to others. Free consultations with an E. coli Lawyer PritzkerOlsen is one of the very few law firms in the country practicing extensively in the complex area of foodborne illness litigation, collecting tens of millions of dollars for victims. Our lawyers currently represent E. coli and HUS survivors in outbreaks confirmed by public health officials and we are now accepting cases from the 2011 NC State Fair. You pay nothing until your case is won, which is part of the professional standard that is common in personal injury law. Call 1-888-377-8900 (Toll Free) or send your contact information online and an attorney will call you... To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Products Liability | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Michigan Health Officials Search For E. coli Outbreak Source

Health officials in Michigan are trying to pinpoint the cause of an E. coli outbreak that sickened three people including two children from Maple Rapids, Michigan who have been hospitalized with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). HUS, a condition that develops after and E. coli infection, most often affects children under the age of 10. It is characterized by damage and destruction of the red blood cells, which leads anemia, blood clots, and damage to blood vessel walls. Complications of HUS are severe and can include kidney damage, seizures, coma, stroke and damage to the central nervous system. E. coli, a bacterium normally found in the gut of animals such as cattle, sheep, pigs, and deer, is spread by the fecal-oral route, through undercooked ground beef, unpasteurized milk or beverages. Symptoms of an E. coli infection include nausea, low-grade fever, loss of appetite, vomiting, abdominal bloating, and diarrhea, which can sometimes be bloody. Health officials urge anyone in the Maple Rapids area with these symptoms to see a doctor right away. The affects of an E. coli infection can be long lasting and expensive. The E. coli lawyers at PritzkerOlsen P.A., a national leader in food safety law, have helped families all over the country who have suffered the devastating affects of E. coli and HUS. Contact them for a free consultation by clicking here or by calling TOLL FREE at 1 (888) 377-8900... To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Products Liability | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment