Pradaxa Suit Removed to Federal Court
Five plaintiffs jointly filed a lawsuit dealing with side effects associated with Pradaxa, including bleeding, in a California Superior Court. This initial filing took place on May 23rd, 2012. On July 16, 2012, their complaint was removed to the United States’ District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The plaintiffs have named drug maker Boehringer Ingelheim as one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and are seeking damages that could help cover medical bills and other costs associated with serious side effects from Pradaxa.
Lawsuit removed to federal court
The lawsuit was removed to California federal court because of the amount in controversy–which exceeds $75,000–as well as the fact that the United States’ District Court for the Northern District of California has original jurisdiction. The petitioners state that defendants Boehringer Ingelheim Fremont and McKesson Corporation are parties that have been joined fraudulently, and whose presence should not have an impact on diversity. In this case, the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action against these particular defendants. Without them, there is diversity of citizenship that places the case under federal jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs are claiming that they experienced side effects associated with the blood thinning medication Pradaxa, including gastrointestinal bleeding and bleeding ulcers. The anticoagulant medication has been cited as problematic by a number of patients who have claimed a range of side effects associated with it, including excessive bleeding, which in some cases can be fatal. Thelma Butler, one plaintiff, claims that she suffers “gastrointestinal bleeding and bleeding ulcers, resulting in the need for [a transfusion of] four pints of blood and two pints of blood plasma, as well as other permanent injuries, such as general physical weakness and reduction in vision.” Another plaintiff, Clifton Fitzsimmons, claims “cerebral and gastrointestinal bleeding, resulting in the need for six pints of blood and one pint of blood plasma.”
Multiple claims against drug maker
The plaintiffs all claim to have suffered a number of injuries, and are charging the drug maker with failure to warn, design defect, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud by concealment, and a number of other charges. Damages are being sought by a number of plaintiffs nationwide.