Because a recent generic Reglan lawsuit has been dismissed, some people may fear filing a Reglan lawsuit against a generic drug maker. However, potential plaintiffs should know that there are other options in regards to holding someone liable for your Reglan injuries, including tardive dyskinesia.
On February 16, 2012, Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas decided to allow a motion to dismiss which was filed by Reglan lawsuit defendant Pliva, the makers of generic Reglan. Pliva was being sued by plaintiff Shirley J. Bell, who developed tardive dyskinesia after taking the acid reflux medication. She claimed in her lawsuit that Pliva did not properly warn her of the TD risks linked to the drug before she started taking it. However, Judge Miller dismissed her lawsuit citing the Supreme Court decision handed down in 2011 that prevents plaintiffs from suing generic drug makers. That decision was given in response to the Pliva v. Mensing lawsuit that took place last year.
Bell originally filed her lawsuit on April 12, 2010 where she listed drug manufacturers Wyeth, Pfizer, Schwartz Pharma and Alaven Pharmaceuticals as defendants, but the defendants asked the judge for a summary judgment under the claim that Bell did not take Reglan, but metoclopramide. That motion was granted on March 16, 2011. Bell decided to amend her complaint by stating that “Pliva failed to warn that metoclopramide should not be used for more than twelve weeks when it failed to incorporate a 2004 update to the brand name label. She also asserted claims for negligence, strict liability, misrepresentation, suppression of evidence and fraud, and gross negligence.”
Pliva claimed that since all the claims made against the were grounded in “failure to warn,” they should be preempted by Mensing. In the end Judge Miller agreed with the defendants. While Bell’s lawsuit has had its difficulties, many other plaintiffs are being granted the chance to amend their lawsuit to include name brand manufacturers of Reglan. While it is frustrating for the plaintiffs, it proves that these plaintiffs are not alone in their fight for compensation for their drug injury claims. There are other avenues for potential plaintiffs that the Supreme Court decision won’t affect.
