Skip to main content

Minnesota MDL Continues to Grow

By February 6, 2012July 15th, 2019Uncategorized

The Minnesota Levaquin MDL continues to grow as yet another case has been added to the docket. The MDL, which is being presided over by the Honorable John R. Tunheim, now includes plaintiff Arthur Dement on the list of plaintiffs suing over tendon ruptures.

Dement’s claim is that he developed a tendon rupture after taking the controversial antibiotic Levaquin as a means of treating an upper respiratory infection. While Dement’s claim was originally filed on July 25, 2011, his case was eventually transferred to the Minnesota MDL on January 12 of this year. Dement’s lawsuit claims the same thing that many Levaquin lawsuit claim; that he was unaware of the tendon rupture risks associated with the drug before he started taking it. His complaint states that Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Levaquin, “misrepresented that Levaquin was a safe and effective way to treat bacterial infections.”

Dement’s case joins many other similar cases in the MDL. Research has proven, and continues to prove, that Levaquin tendon rupture risks are unreasonably high. This is particularly true with patients that are older and those patients that take corticosteroids. The tendon ruptures are very painful and debilitating for some patients, and can often require surgery to correct. As this Minnesota MDL continues to add claimants, even more are expected to join in their efforts to hold the drug company liable for their injuries.

One case which made it to a jury was decided in favor of the plaintiff, John Schedin, who suffered from a tendon rupture after taking Levaquin. In his case, the jury awarded him almost $2 million, the appeal of which is currently pending. This certainly gives new plaintiffs a good reason to be optimistic in their own cases. With the research verifying the increased risk of tendon ruptures and the FDA’s issuance of a black box warning against Levaquin, many more favorable verdicts may be handed down. While these verdicts cannot take away from the pain and suffering of a tendon rupture injury, the possibility of holding the manufacturers liable for it can certainly bring a smile back to patients’ faces.