Category

Testosterone

Androgel Lawsuit James Esparza

Androgel Lawsuit Update – Androgel User Awarded $140 Million

By | Androgel, Testosterone | No Comments

$140 Million Awarded In 2nd Androgel User Trial

The second Androgel lawsuit has concluded with a jury in Chicago awarding Jeffrey Konrad $140 Million in punitive damages and $140,000.00 for actual damages for injuries incurred from Androgel use. Mr. Konrad suffered a heart attack after several months of Androgel use. The jury found in favor of Mr. Konrad on claims of negligence, intentional misrepresentation and misrepresentation by concealment.

The trial started on September 18, 2017 before the Honorable Matthew Kennelly. The jury started deliberation on October 3 and reached a decision on October 5 after two days of deliberation.

This is the second damaging jury decision involving Androgel and AbbVie Inc. In the Mitchell case the jury awarded $150 Million to the Androgel user. Based on the two jury decisions it appears that the marketing efforts of AbbVie Inc. is a substantial issue in Androgel Lawsuits.

Thousands of former Androgel users have alleged that their use of Androgel caused them to have heart attacks, strokes, and pulmonary embolisms. The next Androgel trial is scheduled for January, 2018.

Androgel Lawsuit Information – We Can Help Androgel Users

Many clients contact us not knowing if their heart attack, stroke, or pulmonary embolism was caused by their use of Androgel. If you are in a similar situation contact us with your questions.  If you select us to represent you we will thoroughly evaluate your case, assess the strengths and weakness and let you know the best course of action. Call us at 1-800-745-4050.

 

$150 Million Androgel Verdict – Are Settlements Near?

By | Testosterone | No Comments

Jury Awards $150 Million to Androgel® Victim

In the second trial involving Androgel a jury in the Northern District of Illinois awarded Jessee Mitchell $150 million in punitive damages. The jury, however, failed to award Mr. Mitchell any damages for his personal injury.  The jury found that the Androgel label was adequate.

The substantial jury award will be viewed as a win for the thousands of Androgel users who suffered serious injuries while using Androgel and who are awaiting for their day in court.  The jury specifically found that AbbVie fraudently marketed Androgel by creating the condition “Low T.”

However, the verdict is also a win for AbbVie as the jury concluded that the label was adequate. Most pharmaceutical product liability claims pivot on the issue of whether the manufacturer of the prescription medicine properly warned of the risks associated with the product. Thus, the confusing message the jury has sent will cause attorneys for Androgel victims and AbbVie to speculate about future cases.

Androgel Settlements

Androgel cases were consolidated into MDL 2545 In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation in 2014.  There are approximately 6,000 cases pending before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. Androgel lawsuits involve heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis and death. The next Androgel trial is set to start on August 28, 2017.

With the mixed verdict of the jury settlement values remain elusive.  However,

We Can Help Still Help Androgel Users

James Esparza has been actively involved in Androgel lawsuits since 2014. If you or a loved one has suffered a heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis or death while using Androgel we can help. You can reach James at 1-800-745-4050.

 

the-syringe-1291129_640

Testosterone Lawsuits and Generic Drug Preemption

By | Personal Injury Attorneys, Testosterone | No Comments

Generic Drug Preemption – Good For Consumers?

Attorneys involved in pharmaceutical product liability litigation such as Testosterone Lawsuits  have been living with a United States Supreme Court decision in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011). In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers are preempted by federal drug regulations which require a generic drug label to match the brand warning label word for word regardless of mounting evidence that a generic drug carries a risk far greater than what is disclosed in the label. The case has essentially eliminated all claims form users of generic drugs from bring claims against generic manufacturers.

For consumers, often times, the first time they hear of preemption is when their attorney informs them they have no case because the product they used was a generic drug and not a branded drug. So what is preemption? Most pharmaceutical product liability are based on a failure to warn. This means the drug label failed to warn the user of the true risk or risks associated with the drug. Because Congress wanted to promote the generic drug industry they created a different path for approval of generic drugs and branded drugs. A company seeking approval of a generic drug must only show that the drug is a bioequivalent of the branded drug. On the other hand, the branded drug must show the drug is safe and effective as labeled. The branded drug creates the label and the generic manufacturer of the drug adopts the branded drugs label. The generic manufacturer has no control over the label.

This confusing issue reared its head in In Re Testosterone Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2545, where some of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims arising out of use of certain prescription generic testosterone therapy drugs. They argued that federal law preempts state law claims. Plaintiff’s opposed the motion. Judge Matthew Kennelly granted defendants’ motion dismissing all claims against Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, LLC and Auxillium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the order dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims, including those based on fraud. The issue whether fraud claims against manufacturers of generic drugs based on “off-label” promotion are preempted under Mensing. Judge Kennelly’s opinion focused on whether off-label promotion falls within the area of drug labeling. He concluded that “Defendants’ obligations under state fraud law to refrain from falsely promoting their drugs for unapproved use does not conflict with their obligations under federal law to maintain their warning labels.” Thus the fraud based claims are not preempted.

Questions About Testosterone Lawsuits?

For plaintiffs who used depo-testosterone, manufactured by Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn, or Testopel®, manufactured by Auxillium, the court’s decision carves out a small avenue for hope that they may obtain compensation for injuries sustained by these products. However, without failure to warn, these cases are vulnerable.

If you have questions about bringing a testosterone lawsuit contact us.  We would like to help. We are representing select clients that used prescription testosterone and suffered life altering injuries.

Documents

Androgel Lawsuit Update

By | Personal Injury Attorneys, Testosterone | No Comments

Androgel® Trial News

Eight Androgel lawsuits out of approximately 6,000 cases have been selected by Judge Matthew Kennelly in the Androgel® litigation for bellwether trials. The initial bellwether pool of cases consisted of 100 cases that were thought to be representative of the pool of 6,000. Four of the cases will be heart attack or stroke cases and the other four will involve claims of blood clot victims, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). The initial group of eight bellwether trials are non-mixed use cases where the only prescription testosterone involved is Androgel®.

Cases for Axiron®, Testim®, Androderm®, Testopel® and Fortesta® will be addressed at a later date as well as mixed use cases.

If you are unfamiliar with Testosterone Replacement Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545, the cases are about adult males who used prescription testosterone products and while using testosterone replacement therapy developed a heart attack, stroke (ischemic), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE).

What is a Bellwether Trial?

In selecting cases for bellwether trials it is important that cases selected are not atypical. The cases should not possess a unique set of facts. The over-riding criteria is selecting cases is that they should be representative of as many cases. Extremely unique cases do not further the goals of assessing the strengths and weakness of causation, both general and specific, core theories of liability, the adequacy of warnings, the role of marketing and promotion of Androgel and defense.

When is the Trial? 

The first Androgel® case is set to start on June 5, 2017. While this seems like a long time away much work needs to be completed by then. For example, Judge Kennelly has set the following deadlines:

* 9/19/2016 Deadline for completing additional fact discovery in bellwether trial cases
* 10/24/2016 Deadline for plaintiffs’ expert witness disclosures,
* 11/29/2016 Deadline for defendants’ expert witness disclosures,
* 12/9/2016 Deadline for plaintiffs to request to disclose rebuttal expert testimony,
* 12/21/2016 Deadline for plaintiffs’ disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony, if allowed,
* 1/20/2017 Deadline for completing depositions of expert witnesses,
* 2/17/2017 Deadline for motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment,
* 2/17/2017 Deadline for motions challenging expert testimony,
* 3/20/2017 Deadline for responses to summary judgment / expert motions,
* 4/10/2017 Deadline for replies on summary judgment / expert motions, and
* 5/8/2017 Target date for Court’s ruling on summary judgment / expert motions.

While the outcomes of the bellwether trials in the MDL are not binding they will be closely watched by the parties involved as they may highlight successful trail strategies and influence negotiations to reach Androgel® settlements.

Question?

The James Esparza Law Group has been selectively evaluating and accepting cases where an adult male has used Androgel® and while using the product developed a heart, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). If you have a question, we can help. Simply click the contact below. Phone calls work as well.

Top