More Zofran Lawsuits Expected Following GlaxoSmithKline’s Request To Consolidate, Monheit Law Reports

July 10, 2015 – – With twelve lawsuits alleging a link between the anti-nausea drug Zofran and major birth defects, the legal community is preparing for more claims to be filed in the coming months. “We expect many other families to come forward,” says Michael Monheit, Esq., managing partner at the law firm Monheit Law. Monheit is sponsoring an informational website, http://zofran.monheit.com/, where parents and birth defect survivors can learn more about the ongoing Zofran litigation and the many studies that have found an association between prenatal exposure to Zofran and birth defects.

“At least three studies have produced data that suggest an increased risk of congenital heart defects among babies exposed to Zofran in utero,” Monheit continues, “and another paper found more than a two-fold increase in the rate of cleft palate. Plaintiffs are using those results to substantiate claims that Zofran increases the risk for birth defects.”

But the most recent development in the litigation has seen GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Zofran, file a motion to transfer all Zofran birth defect lawsuits filed in federal court to a court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. An overview of GlaxoSmithKline’s motion to consolidate, as well as a copy of the company’s formal request, can be found here.

“This means we may be heading toward an MDL,” Monheit says, using a shorthand abbreviation for “Multi-District Litigation.” “If GlaxoSmithKline’s motion is granted by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, federally-filed lawsuits will be transferred to one court, and be overseen by one judge, to more efficiently administrate pretrial proceedings.” Monheit notes that GlaxoSmithKline’s motion requested Zofran lawsuits be transferred to either one of two particular federal court judges: Judge Cynthia M. Rufe or Judge Paul S. Diamond. A major portion of the British company’s US operations are headquartered at Philadelphia’s Navy Yard.

“MDL only comes into play when a large volume of claims that all share common questions of fact have been, or are expected to be, leveled against a single Defendant.” Discovery, procedure and pretrial motions would all be managed by the single, presiding judge after consolidation, with a Plaintiff’s Steering Committee appointed to represent the interests of Plaintiffs in procedural matters. “Common issues, ones shared by all the claims, can be ruled on once, rather than individually for each lawsuit. After those steps have been completed, the individual suits can be remanded to the courts in which they were initially filed and proceed to trial, if Plaintiffs choose.”

Monheit highlights another possibility that could arise if GlaxoSmithKline’s motion is granted: Short Form Complaints. “This is a way of streamlining the complaint filing process, when the court believes there are many other individuals who intend to file their own claims.” Referencing a set of common allegations, outlined in a Master Complaint, prospective plaintiffs would be able to file a standardized complaint.

Plaintiffs have alleged that GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully promoted Zofran as a morning sickness treatment, without FDA approval for the drug’s use during pregnancy. They say that the company has failed to warn the public and health community of Zofran’s potential association to increased birth defect risks.

For his part, Michael Monheit continues to provide free consultations to families who believe they may have a Zofran birth defect claim. His law firm, Monheit Law, has joined forces with a number of other plaintiffs’ attorneys to investigate these claims. Monheit can be reached for a case eligibility evaluation by calling 1-877-620-8411.

###

Contact ZofranLegal.com:

Michael Monheit
1-877-620-8411
michael@monheit.com
1368 Barrowdale Road, Rydal, PA 19046

ReleaseID: 60002673