Third Amended Master Long Form Complaint - Dispute Resolution ...

17. They failed to exercise ordinary care to protect users oftheir respective Reglan and/or metoclopramide productsfrom an unreasonable risk of injury due to the ordinary,expected, or common uses of Reglan and/or genericmetoclopramide, in the face of continued or past effortsto promote to physicians the safety and effectiveness ofthe drug, while downplaying its risks, after they knewor should have known that those efforts overstated thesafety and downplayed the risks of the drug comparedto the use of alternative drugs in the same class orcompared to the use of non-drug therapy;18. They failed to communicate to Plaintiffs or to theirphysicians information that long-term use of the Reglanand/or generic metoclopramide involved a higher riskof involuntary movements and/or was unreasonablydangerous than was commonly appreciated in themedical community or as compared to the use ofalternative drugs in the same class or to the use of nondrugtherapy, after they knew or should have knownthat to be the case.19. Owing to a failure to exercise due care, they failed toobtain, at the time of Plaintiffs’ ingestion, scientificdata that would indicate the true association betweenthe use of Reglan and/or metoclopramide and the riskof involuntary movements, either compared to the useof alternative drugs or compared to the use of non-drugtherapy, even though they could legally have distributedthe information they had or should have had to theFDA, physicians and their patients,;20. They failed to communicate to physicians, or toconsumers, like Plaintiffs, scientific data whichindicated that Reglan and/or metoclopramide wasunreasonably dangerous, either compared to the use ofalternative drugs in the same class or compared to theuse of non-drug therapy, and that there were no patientsor only very few patients in whom the benefits of theirrespective products outweighed the risks;21. They failed to promptly withdraw their respectiveReglan and/or metoclopramide products from themarket and were otherwise careless or negligent.- 58 -Case ID: 100101997