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

COUNT X – CONSCIOUS or NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION INVOLVINGPHYSICAL HARMforth herein.210. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set211. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS owed a duty in all of its several undertakings,including the communication of information concerning Reglan and metoclopramide, to exercisereasonable care to ensure that it did not, in those undertakings, create unreasonable risks ofpersonal injury to others.212. Defendant Wyeth through the publication of the Reglan monograph in the PDR,from the early 1980s up to 2002, and otherwise, disseminated information to physiciansconcerning the properties and effects of metoclopramide and of its product Reglan, with theintent and expectation that physicians would rely on that information in their decisionsregarding the prescribing of drug therapy for their patients. Defendant Schwarz Pharma, withtheir unpublished changes to the 2004 label likewise intended reliance by the physicians andpatients on inaccurate and misleading information from the previous labels, and thereby throughomission mislead physicians and patients.213. Alternatively or in addition, when Defendant Wyeth, through the publication ofthe Reglan monograph in the PDR, from the early 1980s up to 2002, and otherwise, disseminatedinformation to physicians concerning the properties and effects of metoclopramide and of itsproduct Reglan, it should have realized, in the exercise of due care to avoid causing personalinjury to others, that physicians would reasonably rely on that information in their decisionsconcerning the prescription of drug therapy for their patients. Defendant Schwarz Pharma knewor should have known that physicians and patients would have no reason to expect a labelchange, unless they were informed of a change, and thereby misled by omission.- 72 -Case ID: 100101997