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

directly, and indirectly through assent and cooperation by all the DRUG COMPANYDEFENDANTS, uniformly and deliberately or recklessly, with willfulness, wantonness, in orderto induce doctors to prescribe, and their patients to consume, Reglan and/or genericmetoclopramide.Plaintiffs and their physicians did reasonably rely upon the materialmisrepresentations and omissions made directly by defendant BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS,and indirectly through assent and cooperation by the GENERIC DEFENDANTS, whenprescribing Reglan and/or metoclopramide.183. As a direct and proximate result of this direct and indirect misrepresentation,concealment, suppression, and omission concerning the risks and benefits of Reglan and/ormetoclopramide, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages, as set forth in their individualsComplaints, when their physicians, in reasonable but misplaced reliance on that misinformation,prescribed the drug inappropriately, and Plaintiffs took the drugs inappropriately, leading to theircumulative toxic exposure to metoclopramide.COUNT VI – CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD184. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.185. At the time Reglan and/or generic metoclopramide was manufactured, distributed,and sold to Plaintiffs, the BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS were in a unique position ofknowledge, which was not possessed by Plaintiffs or their physicians, concerning the safety andeffectiveness of the drug, and thereby held a position of superiority over Plaintiffs.186. Through their unique knowledge and expertise regarding the defective nature ofReglan and generic metoclopramide, and through their marketing statements to physicians andpatients in advertisements, promotional materials, and other communications, BRAND NAME- 66 -Case ID: 100101997