multi district Archives - Carey Danis & Lowe

Discussions Underway in Forming Mirena MDL: Bayer Opposes Consolidating into Mirena MDL

By | Mirena, Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized

mirena_mdl_lawsuit_dvt_blood_clot_settlementsA U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation (JPML) met on March 21 in San Diego, California to discuss the consolidation of Mirena IUD lawsuits into a multi-district litigation (MDL).

Bayer, the manufacturer of the Mirena intrauterine device (IUD), has expressed a strong opposition against consolidation of lawsuits into an MDL. The German pharmaceutical company opposes the formation of a Mirena MDL, which the Judicial Panel is calling In re: Mirena IUD Products Liablity Litigation, MDL No. 2434, because Bayer believes that a Mirena MDL would stall a Mirena lawsuit scheduled for May 2013.

According to a Thomson Reuters article, Bayer stated that consolidating Mirena cases into an MDL would mean that the case scheduled for May would be stalled for an unknown amount of time. Furthermore, Bayer’s lawyers argued against the Mirena MDL claiming it will slow the litigation process for any future Mirena lawsuits.

The plaintiffs’ counsel argued the opposite, claiming the Mirena MDL would organize the lawsuits, and make for a more efficient legal process.

As of now, the first Mirena trial is scheduled to be heard in the U.S. District Court of the District of South Carolina. Mirena lawyers are Carey Danis & Lowe are closely following the Judicial Panel hearings in order to ascertain if the Mirena trial will be go on as scheduled, and if a Mirena MDL will be established.

Carey Danis & Lowe believes that the consolidation of Mirena IUD lawsuits into a federal MDL is an ideal situation for individuals who claim to have been injured through use of the Mirena IUD.

Women who have used the Mirena contraceptive device have experienced ectopic pregnancy, which is a pregnancy that occurs outside of the womb. Furthermore, the Mirena IUD has also been linked to incidences of uterine perforation as well as the device embedding into surrounding tissues.

Many patients have also experienced device migration wherein the Mirena IUD dislodges and travels to other parts of the body, especially the abdomen, and causes significant internal damage.

In cases where a medical device such as the Mirena IUD was marketed as safe, but has caused an undue amount of pain and injury, it is important to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for releasing such defective products onto the market. Lawyers are Carey Danis & Lowe are dedicated to providing our clients with expert legal counsel in a Mirena lawsuits.

Contact a Mirena lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe today by calling 800.721.2519 or by submitting a legal claim form.

Ethicon Vaginal Mesh MDL Update: Defense Fact Sheets Due in Early April for Ethicon Discovery Pool Cases

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

Ethicon Vaginal Mesh MDL Update: Defense Fact Sheets Due in Early April for Ethicon Discovery Pool CasesTransvaginal mesh lawsuits have been consolidated into five multi-district litigation (MDL) cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin is overseeing the proceedings for the Ethicon MDL and four other transvaginal mesh MDLs.

Cases have been brought forth against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit, in particular for the defective Ethicon Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh product. In addition to the Ethicon MDL, vaginal mesh lawsuits have been consolidated into MDLs involving C.R. Bard, American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific Corp., and Coloplast Corp.

The Ethicon MDL is known as In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2327. The Ethicon MDL was scheduled to meet for a status conference on February 7, but the meeting was cancelled. The next Ethicon MDL status conference is scheduled for March 21.

Since their last meeting, Judge Goodwin has issued pretrial order #41 which provides details on the defendant’s fact sheet (DFS). According to another pretrial order delivered by Judge Goodwin in the Ethicon MDL, the defendants must submit to the plaintiffs a DFS for each Ethicon case selected for the first thirty Discovery Pool. Ethicon’s defense counsel must complete this process of filing the DFS documents by April 8.

The DFS requests for each plaintiffs’ case information on Ethicon’s contact with any treating and evaluating physicians. The DFS also asks for details about Ethicon sales representatives’ interactions with physicians, specifically if they received any benefits from a relationship with an Ethicon representative. Furthermore, the DFS orders that the defense list the number of Ethicon transvaginal mesh products purchased by a physician’s office.

The information provided in the DFS is integral to the Discovery process in the Ethicon MDL, and will assist in building strong cases against Ethicon in bellwether trials.

Women have used the Ethicon Gynecare Prolift to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following surgery, women have filed complaints with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) alleging that Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift has caused infection, severe pelvic area pain, organ perforation, and vaginal erosion.

Quite often, women who underwent surgery to receive the Gynecare Prolift had to endure future revision surgeries to remove the vaginal mesh product.

Lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe are currently evaluating vaginal mesh lawsuits, including those involving Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift vaginal mesh device.

If you or someone you love has been injured by a vaginal mesh product, contact a lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe for a free legal evaluation by calling 800.721.2519 or by submitting a legal claim form.

First Actos Trial is Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc.

By | Actos, Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized

First Actos Trial is Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc.The first Actos lawsuit has gone to trial in a California Superior Court in Los Angeles, known as Cooper v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc. Cooper v. Takeda is being heard by Judge Kenneth Freeman in California. The plaintiff in the case claims that Takeda failed to warn that one of the risks connected to the diabetes drug is bladder cancer.

To date, there are over 3,000 Actos bladder cancer lawsuits that have been filed against Takeda across the United States in states like California, Illinois, and Louisiana.

In Louisiana, approximately 1,200 Actos lawsuits have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). Actos MDL court documents show that the first Actos MDL trial is scheduled for November 2014.

In a report from Bloomberg News, a Takeda representative has publicly stated that the pharmaceutical company has acted appropriately in its response to reports of patients developing bladder cancer linked to Actos ingestion.

However, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyses of a ten year study conducted by Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Kaiser Permanente Northern California illustrates “increased risk of bladder cancer among patients with the longest exposure to Actos”. Furthermore, the FDA also cited an increased risk of developing bladder cancer in those individuals who ingest high doses of Actos.

Lawyers at Carey Danis & Lowe encourage individuals who have been injured by Actos to contact the law firm for a free legal evaluation and to file an Actos lawsuit. Carey Danis & Lowe believes that it is important to protect consumers and hold negligent pharmaceutical companies, like Takeda, responsible for releasing a harmful drug onto the market.

Contact an experienced trial lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe by calling 800.721.2519 or by filling out the Carey Danis & Lowe legal claims form.

Update June 2012: Yaz & Yasmin Court Information

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized, Yaz/Yasmin

Published June 21, 2012 on LawsuitInformation.org

Yaz Lawsuit Court Info (6/13/12) — Seedol

The latest addition to Yaz Lawsuit news is that attorneys are still taking cases for those whose health was severely affected through the use of this birth control. Yaz, Yasmin and other drospirenone-containing birth controls have been linked to devastating blood clots that can cause young victims to be on blood-thinning medication for the remainder of their lives.

Many Yaz Lawsuits have been pursued for blood-clot related issues like a stroke, pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. Recent Yaz Lawsuit cases filed have included for those with gallbladder disease or gallbladder failure due to Yaz. Regardless of your side effect, it may be beneficial to speak with a firm that is experienced in settling Yaz & Yasmin lawsuits to see if your situation qualifies for the current Yaz Lawsuit.

Bayer has settled hundreds of Yaz Lawsuits, but it is not too late to begin pursuing compensation for the detrimental health issues you may have after taking Yaz or Yasmin. It is likely that settlements will be made for many of the remaining Yaz Lawsuit cases filed. The situation is also unique in that many experts believe the Yaz Lawsuit may not go to trial phase. The multi-district litigation taking place in the Southern-district of Illinois is continuing to file and settle Yaz and Yasmin side effect lawsuits.

Most DePuy ASR Lawsuits Must Be Filed Before August 2012

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Hip/Knee Replacement, Uncategorized

Published May 18, 2012 on InjuryBoard

DePuy ASR hip implant patients in most states who do not file lawsuits before August 23, 2012 may lose their rights to compensation or to file a lawsuit. Every state has a law called the statute of limitations that sets a limited time period in which a lawsuit for compensation can be filed.

If a person with a legal claim or legal case fails to have a lawsuit filed on their behalf within this time period their claim can be forever barred. In summary, people who do not assert their rights in court within a limited time lose those rights and can never thereafter bring that claim.

Why is the Statute of Limitations for Most ASR Hip Implant Patients This August?

Every state has its own time limit for filing lawsuits called the Statute of Limitations. DePuy and Johnson and Johnson, the manufacturers of the ASR Hip Implant, have a right to have lawsuits dismissed or decided in their favor regardless of the injuries if the lawsuit is not filed in time to comply with the statute of limitations.

Most states in the United States use a two year time period for the statute of limitations. Other states may have a 1 year up to a six year time period for the statute of limitations. Different states use different rules to calculate when these time periods start running and when it is too late to bring a lawsuit. These calculations can be difficult to make and there have been many lawsuits over the running of the statutes of limitations in different types of cases.

Each person’s case should be carefully evaluated individually by an experienced lawyer because individual circumstances can affect calculating this time period. This blog is for general information and awareness and you should not use this information to make your own calculation to rely on for your case for the statutes of limitations.

This two year statute of limitations will run for many DePuy ASR hip implant cases because the official DePuy Recall Notice that received widespread publicity was issued on August 24, 2010. The two year period from that Recall Notice will expire on August 23, 2012. Thus, lawsuits for injured ASR patients must be filed in those states with a two year statute of limitations or it may be too late for those patients to make a claim.

Which States Have a Two Year Statute of Limitations

Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia are the states with a two year statute of limitations for injury cases.

However, the calculations used to measure the two year time periods are different in different states and it is important to have each case calculated by an experience attorney to be sure that the time period does not run out before the lawsuit is filed.

For example, the two year statute of limitations in Virginia is unusual in that the two year time period in that state runs from when the person first has pain or is aware of an injury even if that was before the recall of before they had any idea that DePuy might be responsible. So in Virginia it is likely that the statute of limitations may have already run on some cases where the person had pain from their hip implant before the recall date. It is possible that someone reading this blog could have a statute of limitations that will run tomorrow or next week!

Immediate individual legal advice is critical to making sure that the Statute of Limitation is not missed.

There are many states other than those listed above that have a statute of limitations of two years from the date of death if the implant caused a death. Some states have longer statutes of limitations for injury cases than for death cases.

Are There Exceptions to the Statute of Limitations?

There are few exceptions to the Statute of Limitations. One of the clearest is the Sailors and Soldiers Relief Act which can toll the statute of limitations for some active members of the military while they are in the service of our country. Tolling of the Statute of Limitations means that the time period is stopped from running. That means that some active military people could wait many years before having to file their cases. Our firm has had other types of cases where the statute of limitations has been tolled for decades while a military person is in active service.

Many states have what is called a “Discovery Rule” which means that the Statute of Limitations does not start until a person would reasonably know that they might have a liability claim. I believe many judges would rule that the widespread public dissemination of the DePuy Recall Notice of August 24, 2010 would start the clock running on the statute of limitations even if an individual person did not hear about it or know about it because the test is usually an objective test about what a reasonably informed person would know.

There is another highly complex legal rule called the “American Pipe Rule” that may be applied in some states if a class action is pending to toll the time period for an individual lawsuit for a person who would be a member of that class action. This theory should not be relied on for DePuy ASR cases because there is no viable class action that I know of. The ASR cases are coordinated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict proceeding called an MDL but this is not a class action and will not toll or stop the statute of limitations from running in an individual case unless an individual case is filed for that person.

Mental incompetence can be an exception in some states that could extend the statute of limitations. For example, someone with severe Alzheimers disease might qualify in some states for an extension to the statute of limitations.

Final Advice on the Statute of Limitations for ASR Lawsuits

Every person with a DePuy ASR Hip Implant should have a detailed review of the statute of limitations done by an attorney experienced in medical product liability cases. This review should be done immediately because once the statute of limitations has run there is no way to reopen or restart it. Once the statute of limitations has run it is too late to ever bring a lawsuit for harms and injuries from the defective ASR metal on metal hip implants.

Do Not Rely on this blog as a substitute for an individual legal review of your individual case facts. This blog is to increase general knowledge and awareness of these issues and not to give any legal opinion on any individual case.

I am happy to give individual case opinions at no charge if I can review the specific facts of your case and compare them to the laws of the statute of limitations applicable to your specific case. If you have retained a lawyer to represent you then you should contact that lawyer for an opinion on the statute of limitations.

Every person who has not already filed a lawsuit should obtain a legal opinion on the statute of limitations from me or any other experienced medical device product liability attorney as soon as possible to protect their legal rights .

New Lawsuit on DePuy ASR Hip Replacement: Severe Adverse Events

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Hip/Knee Replacement, Uncategorized

Published May 14, 2012 on LawsuitInformation.org

According to court documents, on May 7th 2012, a Virginia woman, Abbdella Brown, filed a lawsuit in Ohio Northern District Court (case no. 1:2012dp21074) against DePuy Orthopaedics alleging she suffered serious injuries due to ASR Hip Implant Device. DePuy Orthopeadics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, is defending lawsuits in multidistrict litigations alleging that its ASR hip replacement (MDL 2197) and the metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip replacement systems (MDL 2244) were defectively designed. In August 2010, the DePuy ASR hips were recalled.

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) May 14, 2012

The media spotlight is often a double-edged sword. No one knows this better than Abbdella Brown. And yet, gossip and rumor-mongering aside, the real story here is being overlooked according to Sean Burke.

According to court documents, on May 7th 2012, a 51-year-old woman from Williamsburg, Virginia, Abbdella Brown, filed a lawsuit in Ohio Northern District Court (case no. 1:2012dp21074) against DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, alleging she suffered serious injuries due to ASR Hip Implant Device. Plaintiff was implanted with a DePuy ASR hip implant in February 2007.

In October 2010, Brown suffered pain, as well as elevated chromium and cobalt levels resulting in the need for revision surgery, allegedly due to her implants. Brown had the ASR hip replacements explanted in June 2011. In August 2010, a Johnson And Johnson Recall of the DePuy ASR was announced.

DePuy Orthopeadics is defending lawsuits in Multidistrict Litigations alleging that its ASR hip replacement (MDL 2197) and the metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip replacement systems (MDL 2244) were defectively designed.

More than 6,000 lawsuits are pending against Johnson & Johnson over its defective DePuy ASR hip replacements. Judge David A. Katz, who is overseeing the federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, said it includes about 4,200 suits. The other 2,000 cases are filed in state courts, including Nevada, Florida, California, Maryland, Utah and Wisconsin.

In March 2012, results of a study presented at the British Hip Society Annual Conference, showed that DePuy ASR XL device had a higher than anticipated early failure rate as the rate of second operations, or revisions, ranged from 21% after four years to 49% after six years.

Four Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit MDLs Receive Co-Lead Counsel

By | Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh, Uncategorized

Published May 10, 2012 on InjuryLawyer

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has aggregated transvaginal mesh lawsuits from across the country into four multidistrict litigations (MDLs), relating to four separate named defendants. The lawsuits all relate to allegations of mesh complications.

Transvaginal mesh is surgically implanted in a patient for the purpose of treating stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse (POP).  The device has been connected with a host of vaginal mesh complications, many serious and requiring surgical interventions.

MDL plaintiffs allege transvaginal mesh complications

The four named defendants in the separate MDLs are American Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard and Ethicon/Gynecare, which each manufacture a vaginal mesh model. The consolidation of individual lawsuits into an MDL is meant to streamline the judicial process for cases making similar claims.

All cases involved in the side effects MDLs make claims that the mesh manufacturers did not conduct sufficient research regarding possible mesh complications. As a result, consumers allegedly were insufficiently warned about the possibility of chronic infections, mesh erosions, and incontinence from vaginal mesh.

Transvaginal mesh lawyer appointed co-lead counsel

In organizing the MDLs, three attorneys have been chosen as coordinating co-lead counsel with the assigned responsibility to manage and delegate individual tasks within the MDL. These responsibilities include evaluating other lawyers for possible positions common to all four MDLs.

Each individual MDL has been assigned two attorneys as co-lead counsel.  These lawyers will handle the particularities of the individual MDLs, as well as speak on behalf of all plaintiffs during pretrial proceedings.

A steering committee of over 60 attorneys has been selected to divide pretrial duties and coordinate discovery across all four lawsuit MDLs.

Bolstering the claims of existing MDL plaintiffs, in July of 2011 the FDA issued a safety warning that it had been unable to find evidence that vaginal mesh was better able to treat women than other methods with fewer risks for complications.  As the MDL progresses, a steadily increasing number of plaintiffs are signing on to seek justice for their injuries.

Yaz Settlements Reach into Millions

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized, Yaz/Yasmin

Published May 7, 2012 on LawsuitInformation.org

Settlements for plaintiffs who have experienced serious side effects associated with the popular birth control medications Yaz and Yasmin have reached into the millions, after hundreds of plaintiffs received Yaz side effects settlements recently. Yaz drug maker Bayer has agreed to pay out at least $110 million in order to settle 500 lawsuits involving Yaz blood clots.

This settlement news comes when the number of Yaz lawsuits that has already been filed has peaked at 11,000, with plaintiffs claiming that Yaz blood clots, Yaz strokes, and other dangerous side effects have plagued them. Drug maker Bayer has been battling Yaz side effects lawsuits for years, and plaintiffs are hoping now that they have started to settle with those who have filed suit against them many more settlements will be available in the near future.

FDA warnings affect Bayer

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration ordered drug maker Bayer to strengthen warnings about Yaz side effects and Yaz blood clots on their products’ labeling. This newly strengthened warning about the potential side effects associated with use of the extremely popular birth control medication could make patients think twice before using Yaz, Yasmin, and other drospirenone-based birth control methods.

Bayer has also agreed to pay Yaz settlements to the first wave of Yaz lawsuit plaintiffs. These lawsuits took place in the multidistrict litigation case assigned to the United States’ District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

More and more plaintiffs involved in Yaz litigation could see settlements in the future if Bayer’s willingness to pay out in this case is nay indication. Bayer is likely to want to avoid the risks and costs associated with courts in the United States, as it is a German company, and mediation has been entered into in many cases because of this.

Bayer’s settlements unconfirmed

Although the drug maker itself has not officially confirmed the exact amount in settlements, a spokesperson for the company acknowledged that they had paid off a number of plaintiffs, although she did not explicitly disclose the number or the amount of money involved.

Judge Extends Yaz Lawsuit Deadlines to Allow More Settlements

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized, Yaz/Yasmin

Published May 7, 2012 on LawsuitInformation.org

A judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation (MDL) regarding the oral contraceptive Yaz has cleared the way for more settlement negotiations to continue.

Chief Judge David R. Herndon, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, moved back the deadlines for Yaz lawsuits, allowing for the drug’s maker, Bayer, and attorneys to negotiate settlements for the more than 11,000 remaining lawsuits regarding the blood clot risks associated with the drug.

This is the third time the judge has granted a deadline extension for the court cases to begin.

Already, Bayer has agreed to pay out $142 million to settle 651 cases but will not admit any fault in the drug’s connection to deadly blood clots. The settlements come out to about $218,000 per case.

The Germany-based Bayer originally faced 11,900 lawsuits in the United States alone with about 14,000 plaintiffs. Experts say the company will have to pay up to $2.65 billion to settle the remaining cases.

The problem with Yaz started from the get-go. While the birth control pill contained a generic form of estrogen like other pills on the market, it also contained a new synthetic form of progesterone called drospirenone. Studies now show that drospirenone is linked to elevated stroke and blood clot risks.

Early on, though, Yaz was sensationalized through a multi-million dollar advertising campaign that promoted the drug as hip and cool. It was promoted as a way to not only prevent unwanted pregnancies but also prevent acne, premenstrual moodiness and bloating.

With its flashy ads and catch phrases, Yaz quickly became the top selling birth control pill in the U.S. In 2010 alone, it generated $1.58 billion in sales.

By 2011, the curtain was closing on Yaz as more and more research pointed to the drug’s deadly side effects. Girls as young as age 13 were dying from Yaz-related blood clots while the drug company continually denied any wrongdoing.

It took the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) years to finally step in and acknowledge a problem with Yaz. It wasn’t until early April that federal drug regulators ordered Bayer to include tougher blood-clot warnings on the drug’s label.

The warning states that drospirenone triples the risk for deadly blood clots. Just weeks after the FDA stepped in, the first round of Yaz court settlements were announced.

The first nine test trials for Yaz MDL were at first scheduled to being in September 2011 and then January 2012. By mid January, Herndon delayed the test trials indefinitely and ordered mediation at Bayer’s request. The trials were scheduled to begin on April 30 if the mediation failed.

St. Louis-based Carey Danis & Lowe Announces Suit Against the Maker of Zoloft Sent Back to St. Louis Circuit Court

By | Pharmaceutical litigation, Uncategorized, Zoloft

Posted April 11, 2012

Pfizer’s attempt to litigate lawsuit in federal court rebuffed

ST. LOUIS–(BUSINESS WIRE)–St. Louis–based law firm Carey Danis & Lowe announces a lawsuit against Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), maker of the antidepressant drug Zoloft, that was originally filed in St. Louis Circuit Court then removed to federal court by the drugmaker, has been ordered back to the state court.

The lawsuit, Shainyah Lancaster, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., cause no. 1222-CC00766, was filed on Feb. 2 in St. Louis Circuit Court on behalf of 21 children born with defects after their mothers were prescribed Zoloft while pregnant. The suit was brought on behalf of the plaintiffs by the law firms of Carey Danis & Lowe; Matthews & Associates; Freese & Goss; and Clark, Burnett, Love & Lee.

On March 8, Pfizer removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging that diversity of citizenship existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs opposed the effort to remove the case to federal court. (S.L., et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., Case 4:12-cv-00420).

On April 4, U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson sided with the plaintiffs and ruled that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the lawsuit because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and sent the case back to St. Louis Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Zoloft (generic name sertraline) belongs to a class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. The suit notes that SSRIs have been found to cause severe birth defects in the children of women who were prescribed the drug while pregnant and alleges that Pfizer knew or should have known that children born to mothers who had taken SSRIs during pregnancy had a greater risk of congenital birth defects and that despite knowing that physicians were prescribing Zoloft to women of childbearing age, Pfizer failed to adequately warn the medical community and the public of the danger.

The lawsuit asserts state law claims against Pfizer of negligence; negligence of pharmacovigilance, which requires Pfizer to monitor safety data for its drugs; strict liability; negligent design; failure to warn; and fraud. The suit seeks actual and punitive damages.

Founded in 1995, Carey Danis & Lowe has offices in Missouri and Illinois. The firm handles personal injury, pharmaceutical liability, product liability, medical malpractice, class action and commercial cases throughout the United States.