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

166. As lawful consumers of Reglan and/or metoclopramide distributed by the severalDRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs are within the class of persons the statutes andregulations described above are designed to protect, and Plaintiffs’ injuries are the type of harmthese statutes and regulations are intended to prevent.167. In addition to the overall misbranding, several of the GENERIC DEFENDANTSfailed to conform their labels to the RLD label, in some cases for years, rendering those labelsmisbranded per se168. As a direct and proximate cause of the violations of these statutes and regulationsby the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, which therefore constitute negligent acts and/oromissions, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages, as set forth in their individual Complaints.COUNT V – FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, AND SUPPRESSION169. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.170. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs, under the common law, for injuriesproximately resulting from its willful and fraudulent misrepresentations to physicians, regardingthe safety, efficacy, and risk/benefit ratio of Reglan and, by implication, of genericmetoclopramide products that are bioequivalent and therefore medically identical to Reglan.171. Through its actions and omissions in advertising and other activities to promotethe use of Reglan, defendants intentionally and fraudulently made misrepresentations of materialfacts to physicians and/or concealed material facts from physicians, and indirectly to and fromtheir patients, concerning the character and safety of the drug.172. From the early 1980s to 2002, defendant Wyeth (including the A. H. RobinsCompany, Inc.)—through advertising, promotions, in-office and group presentations of sales- 61 -Case ID: 100101997