Knock3

07/31/2012 Pradaxa Lawyer Details: A Pradaxa Lawyer files claims for those victims who endured health complications after taking the blood thinning medication, Pradaxa. Pradaxa Lawyer groups assist plaintiffs looking to become part of the Multi District Litigation which is similar to a Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit. If you are interested in learning more about the Pradaxa Lawsuit and how you can reach a Pradaxa Lawyer, call Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080. We have the resources you need to find the best Pradaxa Lawyer for your case.

 

Directions for Finding a Pradaxa Lawyer

The search for the right Pradaxa Lawyer can often be more difficult than expected. Best Legal Source seeks to ease the minds of those victimized by large drug companies. The process of finding a Pradaxa Lawyer can be hassle-free with a knowledgeable guide on your side.

Best Legal Source has many connections of established, successful attorneys involved in the Pradaxa Lawsuit. To speak with a Pradaxa Lawyer, call (800) 611-7080 and Best Legal Source will arrange a free consultation. During this period, you can discuss legal options with the Pradaxa Lawyer and determine if a Pradaxa Lawsuit is the right course of action for you. Please don’t delay. It may be beneficial to join the first group of Pradaxa Lawsuit MDL cases. You can join others filing cases against Boehringer Ingelheim by discussing your eligibility with a Pradaxa Lawyer.

Advantage of Using Best Legal Source to Find a Pradaxa Lawyer

Best Legal Source offers a complimentary service to those victims who experienced excessive bleeding events while taking Pradaxa. Our experience and knowledge of mass tort law is extensive and we have been working with injured parties pursuing pharmaceutical litigation for many years. You can be assured quality and that the Pradaxa Lawyer is dependable. We only connect individuals with a Pradaxa Lawyer who will work on a contingency-fee basis. This means a Pradaxa Lawyer will only be compensated through a portion of the Pradaxa Lawsuit earnings if the case is successful. You will not be responsible for any upfront costs and you will not owe fees if the Pradaxa Lawsuit is unsuccessful.

 

Begin Finding a Pradaxa Lawyer

It is beneficial to enter the Pradaxa Lawsuit now while there is still ample time for filing. The FDA has released safety communications and credible organizations have produced studies that will assist in supporting your Pradaxa Lawsuit claim. The process is simple to begin. Call Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080 and we will connect you with a Pradaxa Lawyer. While it is not necessary, it may help to have pharmacy records and medical records that relate to all incidents associated with Pradaxa. Our mission is to assist you in finding the best possible choice for a Pradaxa Lawyer.

Further Resources for Pradaxa Lawyer Guidance

Below are paragraphs from an actual Pradaxa Lawsuit. We have inserted this for the benefit of the reader. Our comments are inserted within the Pradaxa Lawsuit below through the form of headers and notes beneath the headers. This information (as well as the entire Pradaxa Lawsuit site) should not be taken as legal advice. The Pradaxa Lawsuit below is not affiliated with Best Legal Source in any way. Please read the excerpt for your benefit and understanding. Call Best Legal Source for Pradaxa Lawyer assistance.

 

Cook County Pradaxa Lawsuit Begins

2012 WL 2396831 (S.D.Ill.) (Trial Pleading)

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

Phyllis KEKICH, Plaintiff,

v.

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation; Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation; and Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., Defendants.

Counts within Pradaxa Lawsuit Explained

Each Pradaxa Lawsuit will likely contain “counts” or causes for action that explain the complaints against Boehringer Ingelheim. The counts in Phyllis Kekich’s Pradaxa Lawsuit are similar to other Pradaxa Lawsuit claims. Below we have inserted excerpts from the Pradaxa Lawsuit of Phyllis Kekich in the form of counts or causes for action. Not all of the Pradaxa Lawsuit document’s counts are listed due to the length required.

First Count of Failure to Warn Phyllis Kekich

Defendants were, at all times relevant to this suit, and are now engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing, marketing, and placing into the stream of commerce Pradaxa® for sale to, and use by, members of the public.

The dangerous propensities of Pradaxa® were known to Defendants, or were reasonably and scientifically knowable to them through appropriate research and testing by known methods, at the time Defendants distributed, supplied, or sold their respective product and were not known to ordinary physicians who would be expected to prescribe the drug to their patients.

Pradaxa® was defective and unreasonably dangerous in that the labeling was insufficient to adequately warn physicians and users of the increased risk of excessive and/or uncontrolled bleeding.

As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiff was exposed to Pradaxa® and suffered personal injuries, economic damages, and non-economic damages, including pain and suffering.

Defendants’ actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint show that Defendants acted maliciously and/or intentionally disregarded Plaintiffs rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.

Pradaxa Lawsuit Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Bridgeview, Illinois

Phyllis Kekich of Cook County, filed her Pradaxa Lawsuit due to excessive bleeding events in June of 2012. Like many others who filed Pradaxa Lawsuit claims, Phyllis is part of the MDL Pradaxa Lawsuit group in the U.S. District Court of S.D. Illinois. Below a section on the second cause to action in the Pradaxa Lawsuit document is given.

Second Count of Pradaxa Lawsuit Involves Design

Defendants manufactured, designed, distributed, supplied, and sold Pradaxa® in the regular course of business. The Pradaxa® manufactured, designed, sold, marketed, distributed, supplied, and/or placed in the stream of commerce by Defendants was expected to and did reach the consumer without any alterations or changes.

The Pradaxa® administered to Plaintiff was defective in design or formulation in one or more of the following respects:

a. When it left the hands of Defendants, this drug was unreasonably dangerous to an extent beyond that which could reasonably be contemplated by Plaintiff or Plaintiffs physicians;

b. Any benefit of this drug was outweighed by the serious and undisclosed risks of its use when prescribed and used as Defendants intended;

c. The dosages and/or formulation of Pradaxa® sold by Defendants was unreasonably dangerous;

d. There are no patients for whom the benefits of Pradaxa® outweighed the risks;

e. The product was not made in accordance with Defendants’ specifications or performance standards; 16 of 29

f. There are no patients for whom Pradaxa® is a safer and more efficacious drug than other drug products in its class; and/or

g. There were safer alternatives that did not carry the same risks and dangers as Pradaxa®.

The Pradaxa® administered to Plaintiff was defective at the time it was distributed by Defendants or left their control.

The foreseeable risks associated with the design or formulation of Pradaxa® include, but are not limited to, the fact that the design or formulation of Pradaxa® is more dangerous that a reasonably prudent consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner and/or did not have the claimed benefits.

The defective and unreasonably dangerous design and marketing of Pradaxa® was a direct, proximate, and producing cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages. Under strict products liability theories set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for all damages claimed in this case.

As a direct, legal, proximate, and producing result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of Pradaxa®, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries, economic damages, and non-economic damages, including pain and suffering.

Defendants’ actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint show that Defendants acted maliciously and/or intentionally disregarded Plaintiffs rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.

Explanation of Pradaxa Lawyer Term

Best Legal Source uses the term Pradaxa Lawyer in a descriptive sense. We do not mean to confuse the reader of our page. Best Legal Source is not the owner or maker of Pradaxa. We have no affiliation with the manufacturer of any drug type. Best Legal Source simply connects those harmed by a drug product with Pradaxa Lawyer groups who are interested and qualified to handle the Pradaxa Lawsuit claims.

Negligence Among Kekich Pradaxa Lawsuit Complaints

Defendants owed a duty to the general public and specifically to Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care in the design, study, development, manufacture, promotion, sale, labeling, marketing, and distribution of Pradaxa®.

Defendants breached their duty and failed to exercise reasonable care in the developing, testing, designing, and manufacturing of Pradaxa® because it was capable of causing serious personal injuries, such as those suffered by Plaintiff, during foreseeable use.

Defendants breached their duty and also failed to exercise reasonable care in the marketing of Pradaxa® because they failed to warn that, as designed, Pradaxa® was capable of causing serious personal injuries, such as those suffered by Plaintiff, during foreseeable use.

Defendants breached their duty and also failed to exercise ordinary care in the labeling of Pradaxa® and failed to issue to consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings of the risk of serious bodily injury or death associated with Pradaxa® use. Defendants over-promoted the benefits of Pradaxa® for anticoagulation therapy in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation and understated the risk of excessive and/or uncontrollable bleeding.

Omitted Content in the Pradaxa Lawsuit

We are very clear about the fact that this is a Pradaxa Lawsuit excerpt and not the Pradaxa Lawsuit in its entirety. We have omitted content from this portion of the Pradaxa Lawsuit due to length and time requirements. The following portion of the Pradaxa Lawsuit will resume with the sixth count of the Pradaxa Lawsuit.

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act in Pradaxa Lawsuit Document

The Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., prohibits “the use of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact… in the conduct of any trade or commerce” and declares such acts or practices to be unlawful.

Defendants researched, developed, designed, tested, manufactured, inspected, labeled, distributed, marketed, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released Pradaxa® into the stream of commerce and, in the course of the same, directly advertised or marketed the product to healthcare professionals and consumers, including Plaintiff.

Defendants violated ICFA by the use of deceptive, false, and misleading representations or omissions of material fact in connection with the marketing, promotion, and sale of Pradaxa®. Defendants communicated and continue to communicate the purported benefits and safety of Pradaxa® while failing to disclose the serious and dangerous side effects related to the use of Pradaxa® with the intent that consumers, like Plaintiff, and their healthcare providers rely upon the omissions and misrepresentations and purchase or prescribe Pradaxa®, respectively.

Defendants intended that consumers like Plaintiff rely on Defendants’ deceptive, false, and misleading representations or omissions of material fact in order to increase their sales and profit for Pradaxa®, which was done in the ordinary course of their business, and Plaintiff did so rely on Defendants’ deceptive, false, and misleading representations or omissions of material fact.

As a result of violating ICFA, Defendants caused Plaintiff to be prescribed and to use Pradaxa®, causing severe injuries and damages as previously described herein.

As a result of Defendants’ violation of ICFA, Plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss and damages when Plaintiff failed to receive the benefit of her bargain by purchasing Pradaxa® in reliance on Defendants’ deceptive, false, and misleading representations concerning its benefits and safety and, instead, suffered actual severe injuries as previously described herein.

Defendants’ actions or omissions as identified in the Complaint show that Defendants acted maliciously and/or intentionally disregarded Plaintiffs rights, justifying an award of punitive damages.

Final Counts of the Pradaxa Lawsuit for Ms. Kekich

In the following count, we are at the end of the Pradaxa Lawsuit excerpt. For further Pradaxa Lawsuit information, you can visit other articles of the Best Legal Source site or search public records for Pradaxa Lawsuit trial court documents. The above count of violating ICFA is specific to Ms. Kekich’s state and situation and is not present in all Pradaxa Lawsuit documents.

Punitive Damages Related to Pradaxa Lawsuit Injuries

At all material times, Defendants knew or should have known that Pradaxa® was inherently dangerous.

Despite their knowledge, Defendants continued to aggressively market Pradaxa® to consumers, including Plaintiff, without disclosing its dangerous side effects when safer alternative products existed.

Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the defective and unreasonably dangerous nature of Pradaxa®, Defendants continued to test, design, develop, manufacture, label, package, promote, market, sell, and distribute it to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the health and safety of the public, including Plaintiff, in conscious disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by Pradaxa®. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and/or wanton.

Defendants’ conduct as described above, including but not limited to their failure to adequately test their product, their failure to provide adequate warnings, and their continued manufacture, sale, and marketing of their product when they knew or should have known of the serious health risks it created evidences a flagrant disregard of human life. Punitive damages are warranted because the acts or omissions were committed with knowing, conscious, and deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of consumers, including Plaintiff.

End of Pradaxa Lawsuit Content

More Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit News

Closing Remark from Best Legal Source on Pradaxa Lawyer Groups

In closing, Best Legal Source would like to remind you of the essential steps to finding a Pradaxa Lawyer. You can be guided through the Pradaxa Lawsuit process by a knowledgeable Pradaxa Lawyer by calling Best Legal Source. We offer the most efficient and trusted avenue to qualified Pradaxa Lawyer groups. Again, the Best Legal Source number is (800) 611-7080.

Pradaxa Lawyer Resources

 

July 31, 2012, admin

Tags: Knock3, Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit, Pradaxa Lawsuit, Pradaxa Lawyer

Posted in: Knock3