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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 Defendant Schwarz Pharma, withtheir unpublished changes to the 2004 label likewise intended reliance by the physicians andpatients on inaccurate and misleading information from the previous labels, and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
214. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS knew, or in the exercise of due care to avoidcausing personal injuries to others, should have realized, that a physician’s prescribing decisionsmade in reliance on inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise false information about the therapeuticeffects or side effects of a prescription drug would be likely to place his or her patients atpotentially grave and unreasonable risk of avoidable personal injury from the effects of the drug.215. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS also knew, or in the exercise of due care toavoid causing personal injuries to others, should have realized, that a physician’s prescribingdecisions made in reliance on inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise false information about thetherapeutic effects or side effects of a prescription drug would, under the circumstancesprevailing, place his or her patients at the same risk of suffering the same injuries, whether apharmacy dispensed, per the prescription, the name brand version or a generic version of thedrug, and that the pharmacy was likely to dispense a generic version. Defendant SchwarzPharma, through omission and failure to notify physicians and patients of the information in theirpossession about inaccurate rate of risk and significant duration of use, failed to effectivelycommunicate changes in the label. As regards any and all prescription drugs that may lawfullybe distributed in this country, and therefore would generally be distributed in this country, thosecircumstances include:a) With respect to any generic prescription drug, for which the FDAhas approved an ANDA, the drug is accepted by physicians to be, abioequivalent generic version of a prescription drug, usually a counterpartname brand drug, for which the FDA has already approved an NDA orANDA.b) A generic version of a drug that is intended to be bioequivalent to abrand name version of the drug generally is accepted by physicians to be,medically and therapeutically identical to the name brand version of thedrug and all other bioequivalent generic versions of the drug, and thereforeis expected to have, the same therapeutic effects and side effects.- 73 -Case ID: 100101997
Page 1 and 2:
IN RE ::COURT OF COMMON PLEASPHILAD
Page 4:
Sears Tower - Suite 5500Chicago, IL
Page 7 and 8:
4 Penn Center, Suite 8001600 John F
Page 9 and 10:
Northstar Rx LLC4971 Southridge Blv
Page 11 and 12:
Richmond Pharmaceuticals, Inc.3510
Page 13 and 14:
Jersey 07940. Defendant regularly c
Page 15 and 16:
12. Defendant Baxter Healthcare Cor
Page 17 and 18:
with process via The Hague Conventi
Page 19 and 20:
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. on Decemb
Page 21 and 22: Case Management Order No. 1, Defend
Page 23 and 24: 34. Defendant Watson Laboratories,
Page 25 and 26: through its registered agent for se
Page 27 and 28: 47. Defendant VistaPharm, Inc. is a
Page 29 and 30: labeling, and design of metoclopram
Page 31 and 32: metoclopramide not yet known by Pla
Page 33 and 34: packaging and/or advertising the ph
Page 35 and 36: 76. In addition, Philadelphia Count
Page 37 and 38: 87. The ―indications‖ (recommen
Page 39 and 40: e satisfied that the proposed label
Page 41 and 42: prescribed by physicians, most of w
Page 43 and 44: exercise of reasonable care should
Page 45 and 46: 113. Since 1985, GENERIC DEFENDANTS
Page 47 and 48: e. independently monitor the sales
Page 49 and 50: disfigurement, disability, pain and
Page 51 and 52: care industry and consumers, includ
Page 53 and 54: associated with the ordinary, expec
Page 55 and 56: 146. The Reglan and/or generic meto
Page 57 and 58: 158. Each of the DRUG COMPANY DEFEN
Page 59 and 60: 22. They failed to implement proper
Page 61 and 62: 166. As lawful consumers of Reglan
Page 63 and 64: duration of use - confirming they w
Page 65 and 66: involuntary movements, aggravation
Page 67 and 68: DEFENDANTS professed to Plaintiffs
Page 69 and 70: COUNT VIII - UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE T
Page 71: loss: the difference between the pr
Page 75 and 76: 217. Alternatively or in addition,
Page 77 and 78: 224. In addition, DRUG COMPANY DEFE
Page 79 and 80: 237. The representatives of Deceden
Page 81 and 82: 248. Plaintiffs also allege that th
Page 83 and 84: d) They continued to promote the sa
Page 85: (G)Such other relief as is deemed j
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?