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

22. They failed to implement proper risk managementpractices including investigation of off-label use of thedrug, the injuries that were caused by the improper useof the drug, and determining the true rate of risk of EPSinjuries being caused by the drug; they also failed toproperly and adequately communicate the warnings tothe physicians and patients, such that a large number ofpatients were improperly taking the drug for long terms,and were harmed by such use.23. Several of the GENERIC DEFENDANTS werenegligent in failing to include information present in thelabel for the RLD and in failing to implement changesto their own labels to ensure that the information theyprovided was current and not outdated; in some cases,GENERIC DEFENDANTS waited years to conformtheir labels to the RLD label.159. The DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS continued to manufacture and distributetheir respective versions of the drug when they knew or should have known that metoclopramidecaused unreasonably dangerous side effects, which many users of their metoclopramide productswould be unable to remedy by any means, and that there were safer and less expensivealternatives available.160. DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, as manufacturers of brand-name or genericversions of the drug, are by law deemed to possess the knowledge of an expert in the uses andeffects of the drug, and as such should have known that consumers, like Plaintiffs, would sufferinjury as a result of ingesting their respective metoclopramide products as prescribed by theirphysicians and properly dispensed by their pharmacies.161. As a direct and proximate cause of DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS’negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages, as set forth in theirindividual Complaints.- 59 -Case ID: 100101997