Pharmaceutical Litigation
The Lyon Firm is a Cincinnati Product Liability Firm with a national focus on Pharmaceutical litigation. Joseph Lyon has worked on the national litigations of Vioxx, Trasylol, Seroquel, Depo Provera, and Ephedra. The Firm is currently accepting cases with Yaz (Yasmin and Ocella), Nuva Ring, Reglan, Gadolinium, Kugel Mesh, and Avandia.
Introduction to Pharmaceutical Litigation:
Defective Pharmaceutical Products present an extremely dangerous public health risk and often lead to large scale and complex pharmaceutical litigation. Pharmaceutical litigation is a deterrent against corporations cutting corners and a means to compensate those who have been unjustly harmed by a dangerous product.
Joseph Lyon focuses a majority of his practice on pharmaceutical litigation. He has successfully worked on the Vioxx, Depo Provera, and Ephedra litigations. Currently, he is handling cases involving Avandia, Yaz (Yasmin and Ocella), Seroquel, Trasylol, Plavix, Orlistat, Reglan, and Gadolinium. Given the large reach of pharmaceutical marketing practices and budgets, the dangerous products can affect the health and lives of thousands of patients. Pharmaceutical litigation is a necessary balance to contain the large marketing budgets and influence of pharmaceutical companies.
Adding to the risk, the FDA has been ineffective in recent years of providing adequate screening, as the volume of drugs that are presented for review is too demanding and pharmaceutical companies have yielded more influence over the review process. Ultimately, the law is very clear that it is the company’s responsibility to run the appropriate tests to identify the side effects and then warn consumers and physicians adequately and in a timely manner. Government approval is not a shield for liability. The Failure to timely and sufficiently warn of side effects operates as the primary cause of action for pharmaceutical claims. However, other causes of action also exist as discussed below:
Causes of Action in Typical Pharmaceutical Case:
1. Failure to Warn:
The Ohio Product Liability Act allows claims against a manufacturer for failure to warn. The claim focuses on the manufacturer’s failure to provide a sufficient warning regarding the side effects of the product. In essence, the claim is that had the company warned, e.g., that Vioxx would increase the risk for a heart attack, the patient would not have taken the product and therefore not suffered the side effect.
2. Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The claim focuses on the manufacturer’s intentional or negligent misrepresentation of the safety of the product. It can also focus on evidence that the manufacturer intentionally disregarded data showing an increased risk for the product.
3. Manufacturing Defect
The claim focuses on a mistake in the manufacturing process that caused a contamination or a mistake in the makeup of the product.
4. Negligence
The claim is generally not available in most jurisdictions as the claims are handled under the applicable Product Liability Statute, but claims may be alleged for negligent supervision, marketing, testing, operations, reporting, and monitoring.
Mass Tort v. Class Action
Cases where the product affects many individuals is properly classified as a Mass Tort. Many people, including lawyers often confuse the definition of Mass Tort with Class Action. There are important legal distinctions between the two categories. Personal injury cases are typically not appropriate for class action treatment because of the individual issues with respect to the health of the individual. Moreover, the issues of liability often focus on warning and representation issues which most courts will find require individual evaluation to move forward in the case. Class issues may develop though around future medical care and screening, otherwise known as medical monitoring, and these issues may be ripe for class treatment.
Please see the side panel for additional articles on specific topics written by Mr. Lyon.
