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

176. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTs made these material misrepresentations andomissions to physicians knowing that they were not true, and knowing and intending thatphysicians would consider the misinformation disseminated to be reliable and suitable as a basisfor prescribing decisions and would rely on the misinformation in prescribing Reglan ormetoclopramide. The representations that Reglan was safe for its intended use, either comparedto the use of alternative drugs in the same class or compared to the use of no drug, wereinaccurate, untrue, and otherwise false. The use of Reglan and/or generic metoclopramide was,in fact, unreasonably dangerous to the health of patients suffering from heartburn and/orbloating, and there were alternative products in the same class of drugs that were available, lessexpensive, equally or more effective, and posed less risk.177. In the alternative, BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS made the false materialrepresentations and omissions with reckless disregard of whether these representations were trueor not.178. At no relevant time were the Plaintiffs’ physicians or the Plaintiffs aware of thefalsity of the foregoing misrepresentations concerning Reglan and/or metoclopramide, nor werethey aware of the material facts that had been concealed or withheld, or that any material factshad been concealed or withheld. In reasonable reliance upon these misrepresentations andomissions, Plaintiffs’ physicians prescribed the use of Reglan and/or metoclopramide as they didfor the Plaintiffs.179. Each of the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, as manufacturer ofmetoclopramide drug products, whether as Reglan or a generic version of the drug, is obligatedto give physicians and their patients, like Plaintiffs, accurate and material scientific informationand data regarding the association between exposure to metoclopramide and the a risk of- 64 -Case ID: 100101997