St. Louis, MO (PRWEB) January 22, 2015
Xarelto lawsuits making allegations of severe bleeding incidents, which were consolidated in U.S. District Court in Louisiana late last year, now number 86 active cases, according to a current case list from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).* Attorneys representing clients in Xarelto lawsuits for the Onder Law Firm provide timely Xarelto lawsuit news updates and information at their Xarelto Contingency Lawsuit website.
When Xarelto lawsuits were first transferred on December 12, 2014, just six lawsuits were involved, according to the official court Transfer Order. In the five weeks since, eighty new Xarelto lawsuits have been transferred for consolidation, as reported by the JPML. “Handling cases as a multidistrict litigation is a method that promotes efficiency in the courts by preventing duplicative discovery. Individual claims within the MDL are still considered upon their own merits, assuring plaintiffs that the legal process will still take into account their specific circumstances. This is a method commonly employed in product liability litigation, of which Xarelto lawsuits are a part,” explains Jim Onder, of the Onder Law Firm. The firm is currently accepting inquiries for possible Xarelto lawsuits from persons who have suffered complications related to bleeding they believe may be connected to Xarelto.
In the case of Xarelto litigation, plaintiffs allege serious, uncontrollable and life-threatening internal bleeding incidents and related complications resulting from the drug, according to official court documents. Xarelto is an oral anti-coagulant, or blood thinner, which is prescribed to reduce the risk of stroke in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation, who have a history of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, or who are recovering from knee or hip replacement surgery, according to the drug’s official website.** Plaintiffs making bleeding allegations related to Xarelto accuse the drug’s manufacturers and marketers of failing to adequately warn patients of the serious nature of Xarelto's danger for internal bleeding, according to official court documents.
Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that bleeding from Xarelto is particularly dangerous because there is no antidote known to counteract the blood-thinning effects of the drug. Xarelto is often compared to warfarin, which has been the primary blood thinner prescribed for decades prior to the introduction of Xarelto and other new anticoagulants, according to court documents. Marketing for the drug** explains Xarelto is an improvement over warfarin because it does not require regular blood testing; plaintiffs argue it is more dangerous due to the lack of an antidote, according to court documents. Warfarin is easily counteracted with vitamin K, allowing doctors to stop bleeding before it grows serious in patients taking warfarin; no such substance has been discovered to counteract Xarelto, though drug makers have been searching for such a substance for some time, according to a 2012 Reuter’s article.***
Xarelto lawsuits allege that Xarelto’s producers knew or reasonably should have known of the dangers of serious and life-threatening internal bleeding posed by Xarelto, according to court documents. Xarelto is a blood-thinner that is administered orally once per day and is common used to reduce to risk of stroke and embolism in persons suffering from atrial fibrillation, a heart condition, and those who are recovering from joint replacement surgery, according to court documents. The defendants in Xarelto lawsuits include the manufacturers and marketers of Xarelto: Janssen Research & Development LLC; Janssen Ortho LLC; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bayer Pharma AG; Bayer Corporation; Bayer HealthCare LLC; Bayer Healthcare AG and Bayer AG, according to court documents. Among the claims filed as part of the Xarelto lawsuit multidistrict litigation are allegations of severe bleeding incidents including gastrointestinal bleeding, brain bleeding, internal bleeding, and death, according to court documents. Persons having filed Xarelto lawsuits on behalf of themselves or a loved one are seeking damages for the pain, suffering, medical expenses, and loss related to severe internal bleeding they allege was caused to Xarelto, according to court documents.
Attorneys handling Xarelto lawsuit claims for the Onder Law Firm offer no-cost, no-obligation case reviews for persons who suffered from internal bleeding or hemorrhagic stroke while taking Xarelto. Lawyers are investigating these claims for possible Xarelto lawsuits. The Onder Law Firm is distinguished by a strong track record of success in pharmaceutical and medical device liability litigation, routinely winning meaningful settlements for clients. The firm is nationally-renowned for its work on window blind strangulation, and has notable expertise in fighting on behalf of individuals against powerful corporations. Persons and family members of persons who have suffered from bleeding or hemorrhagic stroke while taking Xarelto are eligible for a no-cost, no-obligation Xarelto lawsuit case review, and may contact the firm through its Xarelto Contingency Lawsuit website.
The Onder Law Firm also welcomes Xarelto lawsuit inquiries from other law firms, either to handle these inquiries or work as co-counsel.
About The Onder Law Firm
Onder, Shelton, O’Leary & Peterson, LLC is a St. Louis based personal injury law firm handling serious injury and death claims across the country. Its mission is the pursuit of justice, no matter how complex the case or strenuous the effort. Onder, Shelton, O’Leary & Peterson has represented clients throughout the United States, and other firms throughout the nation often seek its experience and expertise on complex litigation. It is a recognized leader in products liability cases such as window blind cord strangulation and pharmaceutical litigation. The Onder Law Firm’s Xarelto lawyers provide information to the public at http://www.xareltocontingencylawsuit.com.
*Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation (Case No. 2592)