Skip to main content

Generic Reglan Cases Have Been Changed After Supreme Court Ruling

By February 17, 2012July 15th, 2019Uncategorized

When Sue Swaw filed a Reglan lawsuit on March 24, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit for Duval County, Florida, her claim was originally made against the manufacturers of the generic version of Reglan, which included Teva, PLIVA and Qualitest Pharmaceuticals. However, due to the ruling by the Supreme Court that removed their liability against the side effects linked to the acid reflux medication, Swaw amended her complaint on September 22, 2011. The amendment included the brand name manufacturer of the drug Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Now Swaw’s complaint will join other similar complaints which will be moving through the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida on November 17, 2011.

Swaw’s lawsuit claims that the she developed tardive dyskinesia after taking Reglan from 2006-2009, which far surpasses the FDA-recommended 12 weeks. Like countless other Reglan lawsuits, Swaw says that the company failed to properly warn her of the serious adverse side effects linked to the drug and accuses the company’s warning of being “misleading and inadequate.”

Many former Reglan patients have filed lawsuits just like Swaw’s amid claims that they were not properly warned of their chances of developing tardive dyskinesia if they took the drug for longer than 12 weeks. Many patients developed the condition before the FDA issued a black box warning against Reglan in 2009. Tardive dyskinesia is a condition that is characterized by patients suffering from Parkinson’s-like symptoms, which include involuntary movements of the extremities, twitching of the eye, lip smacking and grimacing. There is no cure for the condition.

As numerous Reglan patients have filed lawsuits against Wyeth, the makers of the brand-name version of Reglan, as well as against the generic makers of the drug, the Supreme Court decision in Mensing v. PLIVA caused many patients to have to do just what Swaw did and amend their complaints. It is likely that many more plaintiffs will be following Swaw’s decision and making sure that these drug companies are held liable for their injuries.