12.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

251. The conduct of DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, in affirming to doctors thecomparative safety of Reglan (and by clear implication, generic bioequivalent versions of thedrug) and in withholding, from doctors and their patients, contrary information, which wouldindicate the true degree of danger inherent in the use of Reglan and/or generic metoclopramide,despite their knowledge of same, constituted fraud, malice, willfulness, and wantonness, bothheedless and reckless and without regard to injurious consequences or the safety of others,including Plaintiffs.252. At all times material hereto, the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS owed a dutyto exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, research and development,processing, advertising, marketing, labeling, packaging, distribution, promotion and sale ofReglan and/or metoclopramide.253. The DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS were wanton and reckless, in theirmisrepresentations and omissions and other actions, toward the public generally, and alsobreached their duty to the Plaintiffs specifically, in the following ways:a) They actually knew of Reglan and/or generic metoclopramide’s defectivenature, as set forth herein, but continued to design, manufacture, market,and sell Reglan and/or generic metoclopramide so as to maximize salesand profits at the expense of the health and safety of the consuming public,including Plaintiff’s Decedent, and in conscious disregard of theforeseeable harm caused by Reglan and/or metoclopramide;b) They aggressively marketed Reglan and/or metoclopramide, but devotedfar less attention to conducting sufficient pre-clinical testing, clinicaltesting, comparison testing, and adequate post-marketing surveillance ofthis drug;c) They violated state and/or federal laws by selling and distributing a drugproduct that was misbranded and/or adulterated under the federal Food,Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. and parallel state Food,Drug and Cosmetic Acts and state common law; and- 82 -Case ID: 100101997

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!