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

involuntary movements, aggravation of preexisting conditions, other injuries, and death, and/orwhich indicated that the drug was unreasonably dangerous, and/or which indicated that therewere very few if any patients for whom the benefits of long term metoclopramide therapyoutweighed the risks, regardless of whether that information had been approved by the FDA forinclusion in the product’s labeling.180. If Plaintiffs and their physicians had known the true facts concerning the risks ofusing the drug, in particular the risk of involuntary movements, aggravation of preexistingconditions, other injuries and death, from long term cumulative exposure to metoclopramide,they would not have used Reglan and/or generic metoclopramide and would have used one of thealternatives in that class of drug products.181. The reliance of the Plaintiffs’ physicians and the Plaintiffs on thesemisrepresentations and omissions was reasonable because the defendant was in a better positionto know the facts concerning Reglan, and by implication concerning bioequivalent genericversions of the drug, than either the Plaintiffs or their physicians. BRAND NAMEDEFENDANTS overstated the benefits and safety of Reglan and concomitantly downplayed therisks in its use, thereby inducing Plaintiffs’ physicians to use Reglan and/or metoclopramide inlieu of other, safer alternatives. At all times relevant hereto, the corporate officers, directors,and/or managing agents of the defendants knew about and ratified the acts of their companies,the defendants, as alleged herein.182. The DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS passively assented to and indirectlycooperated in the misrepresentations, concealment, suppression and omissions made directly bythe BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS, as described herein. The misrepresentations, concealment,suppression, and omissions were made and done by the BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS- 65 -Case ID: 100101997