Skip to main content

Poor Drug Research the Main Complaint by Reglan Plaintiffs

By May 2, 2012July 15th, 2019Uncategorized

Despite the sheer volume of plaintiffs filing Reglan lawsuits, the main complaint shared by all of them seems to be the lack of proper research on the part of the drug’s manufacturers when conducting the clinical trials.

Reglan is an acid reflux drug that is used to treat various condition including gastroesophogeal reflux disease (GERD), acid reflux and heartburn. The drug has been linked to various serious side effects which include neuroleptic malignant syndrome and secondary Parkinson’s disease. The most common side effect suffered by Reglan patients is tardive dyskinesia (TD). TD is a condition that causes Parkinson’s-like symptoms, including involuntary movement of the extremities, lip smacking and grimacing. The condition is often permanent and can be very debilitating. Reports of these side effects caused the FDA to force the manufacturers of Reglan to update the drug’s warning labels after research showed that Reglan use increased a patients’ chance of developing the side effects when used for periods longer than 12 weeks.

While the manufacturers complied, the warnings came too late for the patients who were already suffering from tardive dyskinesia and the other side effects. At that point, lawsuits already were being filed against the manufacturers of Reglan which alleged that the manufacturers either knew or should have known how dangerous Reglan was, but refused to properly warn consumers and healthcare professionals for the sake of sales.

One thing that is making things more challenging for lawsuit plaintiffs in cases against generic manufacturers of the drug is the June 2011 Supreme Court’s ruling which removed generic drug maker’s liability in generic Reglan lawsuits. This decision is forcing many plaintiffs that have filed lawsuits over the side effects to have to alter their lawsuits. With the research issues being a primary focal point for the plaintiffs, things may improve for them — especially since there is plenty of research to back up what the plaintiffs are saying.