St. Louis, MO (PRWEB) April 28, 2015
An update on the Zofran lawsuit* they have pending in Alabama is offered by lawyers handling the birth defects allegations filed against GlaxoSmithKline. The civil action known as Julie Hunter, et al v. GlaxoSmithKline, et al has been reassigned to the Honorable Madeline Hughes Haikala, according to a Notice of Reassignment issued by U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Alabama.
“The reassignment of the case from one judge to another is a routine matter that we do not expect to impact our forward progress,” reported Jim Onder of the Onder Law Firm. “The only significant effect we expect to result from this news is that the case has been assigned a new case number to reflect the change.”
This Zofran lawsuit represents one of the first filed against GlaxoSmithKline by a family who alleges their child’s birth defects were caused by fetal exposure to Zofran. However, this is not the first litigation the defendant has faced regarding the use of Zofran for pregnant mothers, according to court documents. Zofran during pregnancy was addressed during high profile Department of Justice litigation** in 2013 when GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion to resolve civil and criminal charges for the off-label marketing of certain drugs, according to court documents. The company’s fraudulent marketing of Zofran for use in pregnant women was one of the charges, according to court documents.
Attorneys handling national Zofran lawsuits believe that parents and families whose child was born with birth defects after the mother took Zofran during pregnancy may be entitled to compensation. According to legal documents submitted in the Alabama lawsuit*, prenatal exposure to Zofran allegedly increases a baby’s risk of developing congenital heart defects, musculoskeletal deformities such as cleft palate, and other adverse outcomes.
Zofran is not approved by the FDA for use in pregnant women, according to court documents; instead, Zofran is classified as Category B for pregnancy, meaning its safety for pregnant women and growing fetuses is not yet known, according to court documents.
Attorneys handling national Zofran lawsuits for the Onder Law Firm are currently offering no-cost, no-obligation Zofran lawsuit case review for parents and families whose child was born with birth defects and was possibly exposed to Zofran during prenatal development. These Zofran attorneys believe persons who meet this description may be entitled to compensation through filing a Zofran lawsuit. Nationally-renowned for groundbreaking work in drug and product safety litigation against multi-billion dollar corporations, the Onder Law Firm’s Zofran lawyers have committed their significant resources to providing expert legal representation to women, children and families who believe they may have grounds to file Zofran lawsuits.
The Onder Law Firm welcomes Zofran lawsuit case inquiries from law firms in regards to handling them or working 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. The pharmaceutical and medical device litigators at The Onder Law Firm have represented thousands of Americans in lawsuits against multinational conglomerates from products liability for manufacture of defective or dangerous products to deceptive advertising practices. Other firms throughout the nation often seek its experience and expertise on complex litigation. It is also a recognized leader in products liability cases such as window blind cord strangulation. The Onder Law Firm offers information from attorneys handling talcum powder lawsuits at http://www.ZofranBirthDefectsLawsuitCenter.com.
*Julie Hunter and Talon Hunter v GlaxoSmithKline et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-00544-JEO, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, filed 4/1/15
**United States, et al v. GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 11-10398-
RWZ, United States District Court in Massachusetts, filed 7/2/12