This litigation has concluded and we are proud to report that our clients' claims have been successfully resolved. The amounts of all individual client recoveries are confidential, both by settlement agreement and by attorney-client privilege. MLG is no longer accepting cases involving this product.
Published on Friday, April 21, 2017 by Staff
Earlier this year, Xarelto Defendants Janssen, Johnson & Johnson and Bayer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asking the MDL Court to rule in their favor on certain of the Plaintiffs' claims. A "Summary Judgment" can be issued by a Court when there are no disputed material facts and the law is clear that a judgment should be issued. Unlike a Motion to Dismiss, a Summary Judgment, if granted by the court, is a final disposition in favor of the party requesting it.
In their Summary Judgment Motion, Defendants asked the Xarelto MDL Court to rule that the Plaintiffs' claims are pre-empted (adjudicated) by Federal law. The particular claims are that the Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings about Xarelto's bleeding risks and that Xarelto was defectively designed. If pre-empted, judgment on those claims should be ordered in favor of Defendants.
In this context and when it applies, federal "preemption" means that the federal government (in this case the FDA) has the exclusive authority to regulate the drug, has done so, and therefore the manufacturer/Defendants are protected from liability because they complied with the federal law. That protection would mean that Defendants cannot be sued by people who are injured by the drug.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), the Xarelto MDL Court (U.S.D.C. Judge Eldon Fallon) denied the Defendants’ Motion and thereby clearing the way for the first Xarelto bellwether trials to begin on April 24th. The Court rejected the Defendants' arguments that they were insulated from liability based on the actions of the FDA. In particular, the MDL Court said "Manufacturers remain the master of their labels [warnings] even after FDA approval, and there are clear pathways through which a brand-name drug manufacturer can make changes to their [sic] label without FDA approval." Case 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN Document 6197 at page 6. This ruling means that Plaintiffs will have their “day in court” and the benefit of a jury trial on their claims.
This litigation has concluded and we are proud to report that our clients' claims have been successfully resolved. The amounts of all individual client recoveries are confidential, both by settlement agreement and by attorney-client privilege. MLG is no longer accepting cases involving this product.