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
d) They continued to promote the safety of Reglan and/or metoclopramide,while providing no warnings at all about the unreasonable risk toconsumers of involuntary movements and/or death associated with it, evenafter knew of that risk from multiple studies.254. DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS advertised, marketed, distributed, and/orsold Reglan and/or metoclopramideeven after they knew that metoclopramide posedunreasonably dangerous risks, caused serious side effects of which Plaintiffs and their physicianswould not be aware, and that were safer and more available methods and products available tophysicians and consumers.255. The above-described actions of the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS wereperformed and given willfully, intentionally, and with reckless disregard for the rights ofPlaintiffs and the public.256. One or more of the aforementioned violations of standards established by statuteor regulation were committed with reckless disregard for the safety of the public and of Plaintiffsas a product user.257. One or more of the aforementioned violations of standards established by statuteor regulation were committed willfully and deliberately, and caused substantial financial injuryto the consuming public and Plaintiffs.258. As a direct and proximate result of these wanton and reckless actions andinactions, as set forth above, this court should impose punitive damages on the DRUGCOMPANY DEFENDANTS.- 83 -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 and 72: loss: the difference between the pr
- Page 73 and 74: 214. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS knew, or
- 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: 248. Plaintiffs also allege that th
- Page 85: (G)Such other relief as is deemed j
Change language