Pradaxa® MDL 2385 Update: Court Orders Establishment of Qualified Settlement Fund
The Honorable Judge David Herndon, who is overseeing the Pradaxa® Multidistrict Litigation, has ordered the establishment of a “qualified settlement fund” and appointed an administrator of the settlement fund. (CMO 82, In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 12-md-2385, S.D. Ill.)
Now that a qualified settlement fund has been established and an administrator has been appointed, this will effectuate the settlement program previously negotiated in the amount of $650 Million to resolve approximately 4,000 Pradaxa® claims. Roger C. Denton of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP serves as Co-Lead Counsel on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the national Pradaxa® Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2385) and was appointed by Chief Judge Herndon to serve as a member of the Pradaxa® Claimants’ Negotiating Committee (PCNC).
Pradaxa®, which is manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (and affiliates), is a direct thrombin inhibitor and oral anticoagulant. Pradaxa was approved in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a blood thinning medication used to lower the chance of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. In 2011, the FDA initiated a formal investigation into serious bleeding events associated with the use of Pradaxa®. Unlike other blood thinning medications, such as warfarin, there is no known reversal agent or antidote for Pradaxa®. Thousands of individuals filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of Pradaxa® alleging injuries suffered after using Pradaxa®, including serious bleeding events. As a result, in August 2012 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated the federal court claims into a Multidistrict Litigation (In re: Pradaxa® (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2385) before The Honorable Chief Judge David R. Herndon in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases discussed do not predict outcomes in future cases. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.