Roger Denton of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP Files Petition Seeking Establishment of Xarelto® MDL in Southern District of Illinois
On October 9, 2014, and on behalf of six plaintiffs, Roger Denton of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP filed a petition with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) requesting that all federally-filed Xarelto® cases be consolidated and transferred to the Southern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings (In re: Xarelto® Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2592, Doc. 1).
In the motion to consolidate, plaintiffs assert that there are twenty-one (21) actions currently pending in ten (10) different judicial districts in the United States alleging similar wrongful conduct on the part of the manufacturers of the blood thinning medication, Xarelto®, and the Southern District of Illinois has more actions pending than any other judicial district with eight (8) actions currently on file. In particular, plaintiffs’ claims include, but are not limited to, failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, breach of warranty, and claims associated with conduct that imposes liability with the marketing and sales of Xarelto®.
In the brief in support of their motion to transfer, Plaintiffs allege that Xarelto® was introduced in the United States market on July 1, 2011 and is part of a class of drugs called New Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs). This class of NOACs, which also includes Pradaxa® and Eliquis®, has been marketed as the next generation of blood-thinning drugs designed to replace warfarin – which has been on the United States market for more than 50 years. Xarelto® has been widely prescribed to prevent pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, as well as strokes in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation. However, Xarelto® carries a significant risk of severe, and sometimes even fatal, internal bleeding – and there is no reversal agent available if serious bleeding occurs with Xarelto® use. In addition, Xarelto® has been marketed as a single daily dose pill that does not require the need to measure the blood plasma levels, and thus touted as the more convenient option to warfarin (which does require testing and monitoring).
The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) reports that in 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported receiving 680 serious adverse event reports from individuals who alleged to have suffered adverse events while taking the anticoagulant drug Xarelto® (rivaroxaban), while only 528 serious adverse events were reported for Pradaxa® (dabigatran). The FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) remains the cornerstone of postmarket safety surveillance, the mechanism through which most significant drug risks are detected once a drug has been approved and is available on the market.
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP is a unique law firm that has held numerous leadership positions in national litigations involving dangerous pharmaceutical medications, unsafe medical devices and toxic torts, including but not limited to: In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2545, Case No. 14-md-2545, N.D. Ill.), In re: Pradaxa® (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability (MDL 2385, Case No. 12-md-2385, S.D. Ill.), In re: E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company C-8 Personal Injury Litigation (MDL 2433, Case No. 13-md-2433, S.D. Ohio), In re: Yasmin® and Yaz® (Drospirenone) Marketing and Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2100, Case No. 09-md-2100, S.D. Ill.), In re: NuvaRing® Products Liability Litigation (MDL 1964, Case No. 08-md-1964, E.D. Mo.), In re: Gadolinium-Based Contrast Products Liability Litigation (MDL 1909, Case No. 08-md-50000, N.D. Ohio), and In re: Ortho Evra® Products Liability Litigation (MDL 1742, Case No. 06-md-40000, N.D. Ohio).
If you or a loved one suffered serious injury after using Xarelto®, please contact the attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297 for your confidential and free consultation.
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.