Failure to Warn is a cause of action for many plaintiffs in filing pharmaceutical drug lawsuits. This action has been specifically mentioned in lawsuits such as the Pradaxa Lawsuit, the Yaz Lawsuit (as well as the Yasmin Lawsuit) and the Actos Lawsuit. While each claim is different and the plaintiffs suffered different adverse events, the complaint of failing to warn is a common thread.
Below you can view an example of this claim in an actual Avandia Lawsuit.
A Common Pharmaceutical Lawsuit Claim—Failure to Warn
Defendants are the manufacturer and/or supplier of Avandia.
Avandia manufactured and/or supplied by the Defendants was unaccompanied by proper warnings regarding all possible side effects associated with their use and the comparative severity, incidence, and duration of such adverse effects, i.e., the warnings given did not accurately reflect the signs, symptoms, incidence, scope or severity of the side effects. Defendants failed to perform adequate testing that would have shown that Avandia possessed serious potential side effects with respect to which full and proper warnings accurately and fully reflecting symptoms, scope and severity should have been made, both with respect to the use of this drug.
Avandia manufactured and/or supplied by Defendants was defective due to inadequate post-marketing warnings or instructions because, after the Defendants knew or should have known of the risks of injury from Avandia, they failed to provide adequate warnings to users or consumers of the drug and continued, and still continue, to aggressively promote Avandia.
As a direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, other wrongdoing and actions of Defendants described herein, Plaintiffs have been injured as described above.
Based upon information and belief, Defendants actually knew of the defective nature of Avandia, as set forth herein, but continued, and still continue, to design manufacture, market and sell Avandia so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the health and safety of the public including Plaintiffs, in conscious disregard of the foreseeable harm cause by Avandia.
Charges Similar to the Yaz Lawsuit Complaint
Defendants conduct in the license, design, manufacturing, assembly, packaging warning, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution, and sale of Avandia, included, but is not limited to:
a. Aggressively marketing and promoting Avandia, knowing the high risks posed by failing to conduct sufficient pre-clinical and clinical testing and adequate post-marketing surveillance;
b. Failing to provide complete literature, instructions, and training to healthcare professionals indicating the proper use of Avandia, and the need for monitoring patients while on it;
c. Failing to include adequate warnings with Avandia that would alert consumers, physicians, hospitals, clinics and other users to the potential risks and the nature, scope, severity, and duration of any serious side effects of the drug, particularly the risk of serious cardiovascular events
d. Continuing to promote the efficacy and safety of the drug, while providing little or no warnings, and downplay any risks, even after Defendants knew of the increased risks associated with Avandia use; and,
e. Delaying warnings about the dangerous side effects which may have dissuaded medical providers from prescribing Avandia so freely, and depriving medical providers from weighing the true risks against the benefits of prescribing the drug, was fraudulent, knowing misconduct, and/or conduct undertaken recklessly and with conscious disregard for the safety of consumers such as the Plaintiffs, such as to constitute despicable conduct, fraud and malice, and such conduct was at all times relevant ratified by corporate Defendants herein, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of Defendant.
Defendants’ actions, as described above, were performed willfully, intentionally, and with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the public.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have sustained injuries described above.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.