12 Steps of a Class Action Lawsuit

Thousands if not millions of claims might flood the court system without the ability to file together in a class action lawsuit. Filing together in a class action suit not only allows for the courts to be less burdened, but it also encourages corporate defendants to behave in a more responsible behavior.

A class action lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by one or more plaintiffs, who are also known as the “named plaintiffs”, on behalf of others who have a similar legal claim. A class action lawsuit allows individuals to join together as a group and all file one lawsuit against a common defendant. These type of lawsuits also allow for attorneys fees and all other costs of litigation to be shared among all plaintiffs, instead of one or a few individuals having to pay the cost, which can be a great deal of money, all alone. Class action lawsuits are an important legal right for all consumers, and are a very important part of our judicial system and its ability to function efficiently. Thousands if not millions of claims might flood the court system without the ability to file together in a class action lawsuit. Filing together in a class action suit not only allows for the courts to be less burdened, but it also encourages corporate defendants to behave in a more responsible behavior.

There are 12 Steps of a Class Action Lawsuit

Filing – Case Initiated – A complaint is filed by the attorney(s) on behalf of the plaintiff(s).

Response – The defendant(s) respond(s) with an answer, motion to dismiss or other legal pleading.

Discovery – Both sides disclose evidence to each other that supports their respective cases.

Certification Request – Plaintiff(s) file(s) a motion to certify the case as a class action.

Certification Opposed – Defendant(s) file(s) opposing briefs to the plaintiff(s) motion for class certification.

Class Action Certification – Judge certifies or denies the class action (if the judge denies, the case can continue as individual lawsuit(s) filed by the plaintiff(s).

Notification – If certified, notification of class action to prospective claimants, who must choose whether to stay in the case or file their own individual case.

Trial – Case is either set for trial, in trial, or has been tried before a judge or jury.

Appeal – A judgment of the trial court has been appealed to a higher level court.

Settlement Phase – Deadline is set for class action members to submit claims with supporting documentation.

Pay Out – Proceeds are distributed to class members.

Dismissed – A case can be dismissed at any point during the ten-stage process. This is not actually a stage, but the end of the process. This means that the case has terminated, at least for now, without the plaintiffs receiving any relief. The plaintiffs may have voluntarily dismissed the case, or the court may have ordered the case to be dismissed. Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff may be able to file the action again later.

NOTE: The steps outlined above are only meant as a general guide, and may not be applicable to all class action cases. Some class actions will proceed to trial when settlement between the parties cannot be reached.

Class Action America is committed to providing YOU with the information and access you need to find out if you are eligible to claim your share of billions of dollars distributed yearly through thousands of class action lawsuits.

Lender and Receiver Both May Pay For Mismanaged Foreclosure

If you deal with receiverships, this case will be of interest to you. A lender, a borrower and a court-appointed receiver have been battling one another in an Indiana federal court in connection with a failed construction project. Problems arose when a partially-constructed apartment complex deteriorated so much during a foreclosure suit that a judge condemned the property and ordered it to be demolished, resulting in damages alleged by the borrower of $4,167,881 (representing the purported value of the property pre-suit minus the value of the foundations of the buildings after demolition). In Judge Philip P. Simon’s words, “assessing who is at fault for this mess is at the center of the action currently before the Court.” In rulings filed September 18, 2006 and October 16, 2006, the Northern District’s Judge Simon brought some order to the chaos in case no. 2:02cv368, Four Winds v. American Express Tax and Consulting Services, et al. The cite to the September Opinion, which relates to the borrower’s claims against the receiver, is 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71349. The October Opinion, which addresses the receiver’s cause of action against the lender, can be found at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75581.

Lender spanked. The litigation began when the lender decided to foreclose. The borrower filed a counterclaim asserting wrongful foreclosure because there had been no default. The borrower convinced the court that no default occurred, so the court dismissed the foreclosure aspect of the case. The lender then settled with the borrower for a “hefty amount” on the counterclaims.

Receiver faces trial. The borrower also is pursuing the receiver for negligently failing to protect and preserve the project. An agreed order governed the receiver’s conduct, and the issue is whether the receiver was grossly negligent. The receiver sought a dismissal of the claim by submitting evidence that it did not act with gross negligence. In fact, the receiver undertook at least some measures to protect the property. But Judge Simon ruled that the case must go to the jury to decide factual issues, including: (1) how the project would have faired had the receiver not undertaken the protective measures that it did, (2) how much damage would more extensive protective measures have prevented, (3) why the receiver did not apply to the court for permission to complete the project or for funding to implement more extensive measures, (4) how many times should the receiver have visited the project and (5) whether the receiver was grossly negligent in fulfilling its duties as the receiver. The case is set for a jury trial on February 20, 2007. Receiver v. lender dismissed. The receiver, in turn, had its own negligence claim against the lender, which claim really was about seeking reimbursement for any damages the receiver might have to pay to the borrower. The receiver pointed the finger at the lender, arguing that the lender controlled the receiver’s actions through the funding (or lack thereof) of the receivership. Judge Simon held there was no legal basis for the receiver’s position, however, and dismissed the claim. If any negligence-based duties flowed between the parties, they flowed from the receiver to the lender, not vice versa. Thus the receiver, if found to be grossly negligent, cannot recoup any losses from the lender (although the receiver may be entitled to a credit/set-off for the money the lender paid to the borrower.) Interestingly, the agreed order appointing the receiver required the receiver to preserve and protect the property with receivership funds, even though there were no “receivership funds” to do so because the property generated no income. That catch-22 may have been the property’s downfall. The receiver was responsible for directing the preservation of the property, but on whose dime? Evidently there was an informal arrangement whereby the lender funded the receivership. That went okay at the beginning, but the problems and costs later seemed to snowball out of control. I gather that, if and to the extent the receiver was negligent, it was due in part to inadequate funding by the lender. The confidential “substantial” settlement the lender paid to the borrower supports my speculation.

Lessons. Even though the lender won its legal battle with the receiver, the lender had already lost when the project failed and the borrower forced the lender to settle. There are some lessons here for lenders (and receivers):

– Ensure there is a default before a foreclosure case is initiated

– Spell out in the receivership order exactly how the receivership will be funded

– Clarify in the order the duties of the receiver, and the borrower or lender as warranted

– If the lender agrees to fund the preservation of the property, it should take reasonable steps to do so and should not unreasonably permit a project to deteriorate substantially in value

But perhaps the greatest lesson is – in cases of construction loans where the collateral is being built – lenders should foreclose and appoint a receiver only as a last resort.

John D. Waller is a partner at the Indianapolis law firm of Wooden & McLaughlin LLP (www.woodmclaw.com). He publishes the blog Indiana Commercial Foreclosure Law at http://commercialforeclosureblog.typepad.com. John’s phone number is 317-639-6151, and his e-mail address is jwaller@woodmclaw.com.

Fosamax Law Suit – What You Need to Know About Fosamax Law Suits!

This article focuses upon 4 key items related to Fosamax Law Suits:

Mechanism of Action Case Screening About the MDL State Court Litigation

Use Of Fosamax:
Bisphosphonate (others include, Zometa, Aredia, Actonel)
Used for Osteoporosis Bone Mass that is more than 2.5 std dev. Below normal.
(e.g. DEXA SCAN -2.5 or lower)
(and sometimes for Osteopenia).
Used for cancers where there is a concern of mesastisis to bones
Used for Hypercalcimia

Bone Dynamics
Structure of Bone – Think of a honey comb or an apartment complex. Hard chambers of calcium.
Bone is alive and has blood flow.
Two Processes, Three Types of Cells
Mature: Osteocyte (lives 150 days)
New: Osteoblast (an immature osteocyte)
Resorbing: Osteoclast (softens bone so old cell can be replaced)

Fosamax Do’s and Don’ts: Fosamax hardens Old Bone Fosamax does NOT make New Bone

Mechanism of Action
The Doors are Locked and Occupant is Dead
Osteoclast production inhibited
Body armor – cell chamber. Hardened Calcium
No way for dead cell to escape.
No way for new cell to enter
Blood Flow no longer supported
Bone Necrosis Occurs When a Trauma (e.g. dental work done)
Or micro can fracturing occur, since never replacing the cell walls.

ONJ – Dead Jaw: Osteneocrosis of the Jaw
Why the Jaw – Very Vascular Tissue.
Cells die inside bone & Haversion Canals Close off
Periostial Blood Flow Diminishes
Usually Trauma to Tissue on Tissue Around Bone Occurs (e.g. a routine dental procedure)
Or spontaneous ONJ – 27% of time no trauma involved!
Tissue can not get enough blood supply for nutrients to heal
Necrosis occurs and worsens problem

Spiral Fractures
Microfractures – Leading to Spiral Fracture of Femur
Small fracturing occurs naturally
Usually it is repaired by healthy living cells
In case where there are no new cells (Osteoblasts maturing into Osteocytes), there are no lives cells to repair the micro fractures
Microfractures accumulate
Resulting in a Spiral Fracture of the Femur
Studies not yet published on this

Michael Monheit, Esq. is a lawyer at Anapol Schwartz Weiss Cohan Feldman and Smalley – Fosamax Lawyers. His practice focuses upon complex pharmaceutical litigation, including Fosamax Law Suits.

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!

Paxil Class Action and Finding a Paxil Lawyer

Paxil is a drug that is thought to have dangerous side effects and withdrawal symptoms. It is also believed that Paxil, when prescribed to children, can be ineffective and even increase the risk of suicidal tendencies. If you or your child has been prescribed Paxil and you think that either of you run the risk of these adverse side-effects, then you might consider joining hundreds who have contacted Paxil lawyers and who have filed a Paxil class action suit. Paxil, which is manufactured by SmithKline Beecham, was launched in the United States at the end of 1992. Paxil is classed as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) type drug and was the third of its kind to be produced for the treatment of depression. Prozac was the first SSRI-type drug to hit the market in 1988 and since then, there has been substantial controversy surrounding the question whether SSRIs (such as Paxil) can cause violent and suicidal tendencies.

On 19th June, 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a statement that it had been reviewing reports of a possible link between suicidal thoughts and attempts in children under the age of 18, with those using the Paxil drug for treatment against depression. At a similar time, the United Kingdom Department of Health issued a press release in which it stated that Paxil should not be used in children under 18 due to the increased number of incidences of self-harm and suicidal behavior in those taking the drug.

If the FDA and other such bodies have issued warnings against the drug, what rights do parents have to file for Paxil class action suits? The reason is that there have been reports that SmithKline Beecham had known for years of the potential risk of suicidal behavior and increased thoughts of self-harm in children taking the drug. It is also believed that the manufacturing company failed to warn of the serious side-effects and withdrawal hardships that patients would experience when taking the drug.

If you or your loved ones have been taking Paxil and feel that you have been mislead by the manufacturing company and the health authorities, now is the time to find a Paxil lawyer and to consider filing a Paxil class action suit. The shocking statistics indicate that as many as 75% of doctors and physicians are unaware of the adverse side effects of Paxil, and they continue to prescribe this drug to unsuspecting parents and children!

If you think that violent thoughts, suicidal attempts or erratic behavior on your or your child’s part might be linked to taking Paxil, then you have the right to approach a Paxil lawyer. By finding a Paxil lawyer who is experienced in this type of class action suit and who knows how to handle the bureaucracy involved in facing a giant conglomeration such as SmithKline Beecham, you could save yourself years of aggravation. Stand up for your rights and you could save your loved one’s life. Don’t become a statistic!

Nick Johnson is a personal injury attorney and lead counsel with Johnson Law Group, a personal injury law firm with principal offices located in Houston, Texas. Mr. Johnson represents injured people in injury cases and matters involving the drug Paxil. For a free case evaluation, contact Johnson Law Group and its Paxil attorneys at 1-888-311-5522 or visit http://www.johnsonlawgroup.com for more information.

Back to homepage for Law Information

Paxil Class Action and Finding a Paxil Lawyer

Paxil is a drug that is thought to have dangerous side effects and withdrawal symptoms. It is also believed that Paxil, when prescribed to children, can be ineffective and even increase the risk of suicidal tendencies. If you or your child has been prescribed Paxil and you think that either of you run the risk of these adverse side-effects, then you might consider joining hundreds who have contacted Paxil lawyers and who have filed a Paxil class action suit.

Paxil, which is manufactured by SmithKline Beecham, was launched in the United States at the end of 1992. Paxil is classed as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) type drug and was the third of its kind to be produced for the treatment of depression. Prozac was the first SSRI-type drug to hit the market in 1988 and since then, there has been substantial controversy surrounding the question whether SSRIs (such as Paxil) can cause violent and suicidal tendencies.

On 19th June, 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a statement that it had been reviewing reports of a possible link between suicidal thoughts and attempts in children under the age of 18, with those using the Paxil drug for treatment against depression. At a similar time, the United Kingdom Department of Health issued a press release in which it stated that Paxil should not be used in children under 18 due to the increased number of incidences of self-harm and suicidal behavior in those taking the drug.

If the FDA and other such bodies have issued warnings against the drug, what rights do parents have to file for Paxil class action suits? The reason is that there have been reports that SmithKline Beecham had known for years of the potential risk of suicidal behavior and increased thoughts of self-harm in children taking the drug. It is also believed that the manufacturing company failed to warn of the serious side-effects and withdrawal hardships that patients would experience when taking the drug.

If you or your loved ones have been taking Paxil and feel that you have been mislead by the manufacturing company and the health authorities, now is the time to find a Paxil lawyer and to consider filing a Paxil class action suit. The shocking statistics indicate that as many as 75% of doctors and physicians are unaware of the adverse side effects of Paxil, and they continue to prescribe this drug to unsuspecting parents and children!

If you think that violent thoughts, suicidal attempts or erratic behavior on your or your child’s part might be linked to taking Paxil, then you have the right to approach a Paxil lawyer. By finding a Paxil lawyer who is experienced in this type of class action suit and who knows how to handle the bureaucracy involved in facing a giant conglomeration such as SmithKline Beecham, you could save yourself years of aggravation. Stand up for your rights and you could save your loved one’s life. Don’t become a statistic!

Nick Johnson is a lead counsel with Johnson Law Group, with principal offices located in Houston, Texas. Mr. Johnson represents cases and matters involving the drug Paxil. For a free case evaluation, contact Johnson Law Group at 1-888-311-5522 or visit http://www.johnsonlawgroup.com

Back to homepage for Law Information

Risperdal Side Effects & Risperdal Lawsuits

Risperdal (generically known as risperdone) is an antipsychotic drug that is used to treat delusional psychoses. Dopamine is a key neurotransmitter that the brain uses which allows a person to experience pleasure and desire. Risperdal acts to reduce the amount of dopamine the brain produces so that a natural balance of chemicals in the brain. This can reduce or eliminate many psychotic episodes that people experience.

Unfortunately the use of Risperdal is known to cause several harmful side effects for its users. Dangerous side effects of Risperdal are similar to those of many other antipsychotic medications. Potential fatal side effects include tardive, dyskinesia, extraphyramidal disorders and serious neuroleptic malignant disorders. Non-fatal, short term side effects of Risperdal nausea, anxiety, dizziness, insomnia, low blood pressure, muscle stiffness, fatigue and weight gain.

There are also very serious risks of Risperdal being taken in pregnant women. If you become pregnant while taking the drug, it is strongly advised that you consult your physician immediately. In certain studies it was shown that rat pups with Risperdal in their systems had a higher rate of fatalities than the others. If these studies are duplicated in humans it could mean that children with Risperdal in their systems could face a higher death rate.

If you or someone you know has been affected by Risperdal side effects, it is important that you contact a qualified Risperdal lawyer today. Filing a lawsuit can be a very powerful way to take a stand against the pharmaceutical companies and secure financial compensation for your ongoing struggles.

To learn more about Risperdal Side Effects and Filing a Risperdal Lawsuit, please visit http://www.resource4risperdalinfo.com This article may be freely reprinted as long as this resource box is included and all links stay intact as hyperlinks.
T.Going

To learn more about Risperdal Side Effects and Filing a Risperdal Lawsuit, please visit http://www.resource4risperdalinfo.com This article may be freely reprinted as long as this resource box is included and all links stay intact as hyperlinks.

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!

Back to homepage for Law Information

DuPont, Teflon and the potential impact of a class action lawsuit

In the 1930’s DuPont, a U.S. firm, invented and began to market a substance called Teflon. Teflon is used today primarily as a non-stick coating for pots, pans and other cookware, though Teflon also has applications as a coating for textile based products such as clothes, apparel, carpeting and furniture. When manufacturing Teflon a chemical called perfluorooctanioc acid, or PFOA is used, though Teflon and PFOA are not the same – PFOA is a chemical, Teflon is a name brand. This chemical, which some scientist have said is a likely human carcinogen, is the reason lawsuits have been filed.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency addresses PFOA, or “C8” as it is sometimes called, giving specific attention to its potential harmful effects. The EPA points out that they are unaware of any information that the general public is being exposed to PFOA through the routine use of non-stick cookware. The website also says that the EPA knows of no reason for consumers to stop using non-stick cookware. The EPA points out that Teflon is not PFOA, but that PFOA is used in the manufacture of Teflon.

DuPont also denies the claims that Teflon or the PFOA contained in the Teflon causes cancer, saying that their product is safe. However, in 2004, DuPont did agree to an out of court settlement in a class action suit brought on behalf of approximately 50,000 residents living near a DuPont plant in West Virginia. The basis of this class action was that DuPont had polluted the water in the Ohio River south of their plant with PFOA and that this had resulted in birth defects and other hazards, though DuPont admitted no liability in settling this suit. Given the resolution of this class action, it is not surprising that attention has now been focused on Teflon and the PFOA contained within it.

The main result has been that a number of lawsuits have been filed across the US alleging that DuPont failed to properly warn of the potential hazards of the exposure to PFOA in cookware. On May 12, 2006, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court located in Des Moines, Iowa.

The basis of the suit is the allegation that DuPont knew of the harm exposure to PFOA could cause and that the PFOA in Teflon could become toxic when the cookware reached certain temperatures that are easily attainable on a household stovetop. The lawsuit also alleges that in addition to having this knowledge, DuPont repeatedly lied to the public and government in saying that Teflon was safe. The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit are asking the Court to:

1. establish a fund to provide for the independent study of the harmful effects of Teflon
2. immediately cease the manufacture and distribution of Teflon
3. to replace or compensate the owner of any Teflon coated product, and
4. to provide warning labels indicating the potential harmful effects of Teflon.

However, despite the numerous allegations raised in the suit and the relief that has been requested, the lawsuit does not allege that anyone has become ill or that the PFOA in the Teflon has ever made anyone sick, the crux of the lawsuit is that the potential for injury may exist.

The lawsuit also alleges that DuPont has concealed documentation that addresses the harmful effects of the PFOA in Teflon. While the suit does not specify a specific dollar amount, it has been estimated that the suit, if successful, could cost DuPont in excess of $5 billion.

DuPont has long contended and continues to maintain the position that Teflon has a proven 40 year track record and that it is safe and non-harmful. DuPont will be filing an answer responding to the allegations contained in the complaint. As the suit has been filed as a class action, the Plaintiff’s will be arguing that it should be certified as a class [a class action cannot be maintained without judicial certification] thereby giving the attorneys in the case the ability to argue on behalf of potentially millions of consumers and to also argue and present evidence that they may have been harmed through their use of Teflon and Teflon coated products. DuPont has made it clear that they will fight certification as a class action for these lawsuits.

On DuPont’s website there is a long overview of Teflon and PFOA. On the website, DuPont has provided a basis for what will likely be the basis of any defense in the case in that they say that independent studies have repeatedly shown that no detectable levels of PFOA could be found in two independent studies. The website goes on to point out that when the United States Food and Drug Administration conducted testing that, under non-standard and abusive conditions, only minute levels of PFOA could be found. On their web page, DuPont even points out that the American Heart Association recommends cooking with non-stick cookware.

A quick search on Google for near any variation of “DuPont,” “lawsuit,” and “Teflon” provides more than 60,000 results. Many of the results are current news articles focused on not only the current lawsuit that has been filed seeking federal class action status for numerous plaintiffs, but also the prior DuPont lawsuit where the class settled over PFOA allegedly found in the Ohio River. As well, you will find a number of web sites put up by attorneys seeking to recruit members of the class and also a number of websites focused on DuPont’s alleged suppression of documentation showing that PFOA is harmful to the general public and that toxic exposure could happen as a result of exposure to the non-stick Teflon coated cookware. This case continues to gain interest as a result of its potential long reaching impact.

This case is quite interesting for a number of reasons. Clearly, DuPont, having paid many of millions of dollars to settle a suit related to PFOA exposure takes this matter quite seriously and recognizes the potential exposure by way of this lawsuit. The scope and potential impact of this case is perhaps one of the most far reaching of any class action ever filed in the United States. There have been class actions in the past that have had a far reaching impact based upon the members of the class; however, this Teflon case has the potential to reach even further – clearly into the majority of the homes in the United States.

Teflon, in its 40 year history has become a mainstay of cooking so much to the point that societies’ heart friendly approach to cooking and dieting frequently starts with an item of non-stick cookware. As a result of this homes in which there are an absence of non-stick cookware will be at a minimum. It is a result of this that legal experts speculate that if the lawsuit is successful and DuPont is required to replace or compensate the owners of Teflon coated non-stick cookware that the financial exposure could be upwards of $5 billion dollars. This suit will likely be ongoing for some time; however, there will be numerous opportunities for the case end. The first of these events will soon be occurring as the initial hearings in the matter will be focused on determine whether the plaintiffs will be granted class action status for their claims.

Sean Keefer is a staff writer for LawsuitSearch.Com. This original article can be found at: Teflon Health & Lawsuit Information

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!

Pfizer’s Bextra Lawsuits

For years, Merck has been under scrutiny for a number of drugs, most recently Vioxx. The recall of Vioxx has shares down by more than 40 percent and facing hundreds of lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars. However, Merck is not alone in the scrutiny that this pharmaceutical company faces. Pfizer, the maker of Bextra and Celebrex, painkillers in the same family as Vioxx, is facing similar legal problems. The question being asked is whether Bextra and Celebrex increase the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Although Pfizer has avoided much of the negative publicity in newspapers and radio as compared to Merck, the question still stands as to whether the problems with Vioxx extend to similar medicines taken by millions of consumers. Although these pharmaceutical companies claim to have drugs that relieve chronic arthritis pain without causing ulcers, what other side effects may be the result?

Susan Raymond is filing a suit claiming her husband, age 46, died from a heart attack after taking Pfizer’s Bextra for only 10 months. Jerrold Parker, an attorney at Parker & Waichman in Great Neck, N.Y. will be representing her.

Despite this incident, Pfizer challenges the negative effects that Bextra may have had, claiming that large, long-term studies demonstrate that although Bextra and Celebrex are in the same family of Cox-2 inhibitors, that they do not hold the same risk. Pfizer goes on to add that the two smaller studies that show risks associated with Bextra were limited to patients that had undergone open heart surgery and therefore, do not represent the risks to the average patient.

At a major medical meeting, two leading researchers presented evidence that Bextra carries the same elevated risk of heart attack and stroke as other Cox-2 inhibitors. They criticized Pfizer for failing to notify the public of the scientific data relating to its risks. In turn, Pfizer said the findings were flawed. Although the effects of Bextra remain an immense debate, medical experts have and will continue to raise questions about the safety of Bextra and this class of medicines.

Scott Montgomery, who represents the Montgomery Law Firm, LLC, investigates cases dealing with Bextra and its harmful side effects to consumers. If you or a loved one has been injured by Bextra you may have valuable legal rights. We will evaluate your case for free.

http://www.montgomerylaw.org/bextra.php

Xprexa Litigation

yprexa litigation has been targeted at a number of Zyprexa side-effect problems: Some patients have reported the Zyprexa side-effect of gaining up to 65 pounds after taking Zyprexa. After the weight gain some developed the Zyprexa side-effect of diabetes or glucose abnormalities. Patients who already had the Zyprexa side-effect of theit diabetes growing worse while taking Zyprexa. Worse yet — patients died from developing diabetes. These patients were never treated for diabetes and didn’t know they had diabetes. Patients under 54 years old, face the highest risk of developing the Zyprexa side-effect of diabetes or having heart attacks and comas when taking Zyprexa.

Have you, a family member, or dear friend been diagnosed with diabetes, diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperglycemia, pancreatitis, or diabetic-induced heart attack or coma following the use of Zyprexa? You may want to consider Zyprexa litigation and may want to consult with a lawyer familiar with Zyprexa litigation. If so, please complete the FREE no obligation consultation today.

Researchers have linked Zyprexa to the side-effect of onset of diabetes, hyperglycemia, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome thereby creating enough concern and patient outcry to lead Japan, Europe, and most recently the United States to include warnings about the chronic side-effects and the sometimes-fatal Zyprexa side-effect. (Japan published safety warnings two years before the U.S.) Consumer groups believe that the FDA had done too little too late to warn doctors and patients about the risks of hyperglycemia, diabetes, ketoacidosis, heart attack, and coma from taking Zyprexa.

In November 2001, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and a Duke University Medical Center physician first possibly linked between the Zyprexa side-effect of hyperglycemia in adolescents with the drug. FDA staff members published a report in the December 2001 American Journal of Medicine linking Zyprexa to diabetes. Both Zyprexa reports used information from the FDA’s adverse drug reaction database.

Most recently, the FDA has identified at least 384 reports of diabetes linked to Zyprexa, with the majority of cases appearing within six months of starting Zyprexa treatment. This has been a major focus in the Zyprexa litigation.

Consumer advocates claim that the Zyprexa side-effect warnings referencing diabetes, heart attack, coma, and hyperglycemia are buried deep within the adverse reactions section of the drug’s labeling. Patients are less likely to notice the warning when it’s buried in the smallest of fine print than if it were more prominently displayed. The failure to give adequate warnings is one of the core allegations in the Zyprexa litigation.

Researchers have also found preliminary evidence that linked the Zyprexa side-effect and pancreatitis, a dangerous inflammation of the pancreas. Studies looked at patients using four antipsychotic drugs and examined all the pancreatitis cases reported to the FDA or written up in medical journals between January 1981 and February 2002. Researchers found more instances of pancreatitis in Clozaril, Zyprexa, and Risperdal patients.

Of the 192 Zyprexa side-effect cases, people using Zyprexa alone had 62 instances within the four antipsychotic drugs. The pancreatitis occurrences resulted in 22 deaths. A definitive link between Zyprexa side-effect and pancreatitis has not yet been established though the findings have raised concern.

Adding to the complexity surrounding the potential Zyprexa side-effect of the drug is the strong connection between diabetes and schizophrenia, noted by scientists since the 1920s. Sufferers of the debilitating brain disorder develop diabetes at a rate up to four times higher than the general population, whether they use antipsychotic drugs or not. People with schizophrenia often lead a sedentary lifestyle, lack good medical care, have poor diets, and high rates of obesity — all which are risk factors for diabetes.

Eli Lilly has argued that Zyprexa’s safety is supported by two Eli Lilly sponsored studies. According to the manufacturer, two studies demonstrate that Zyprexa has no diabetes-inducing effects. According to doctors at the diabetes care center at the University of North Carolina, too few patients were studied to detect a less common Zyprexa side effect.
About the Author

Zyprexa Lawsuit information provided by Monheit Law

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!

Zxprexa Lawsuits

Zyprexa coma side effects, and others like heart attacks and diabetes, are significant. In February 2004 the American Diabetes Association published a Consensus Statement in its Diabetes Care journal. In that statement, the American Diabetes Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, stated that data consistently shows an increased risk for diabetes in patients who are treated with Zyprexa (generic – olanzapine). Zyprexa is also associated with an increase risk of coma. The findings were based on input from drug companies, consultations with numerous experts, and reviewing medical literature.

What is Zyprexa?

* Zyprexa is an atypical antipsychotic medication that changes the chemical actions in your brain.
* Zyprexa is used to treat psychotic symptoms including hallucinations, delusions, and confusion.
* Zyprexa may also be used for purposes other than those listed in the medication guide.

Unfortunately, not only are schizophrenia patients being given Zyprexa; children and adolescents displaying only minor conditions are also being prescribed Zyprexa. According to many Zyprexa critics, the risks for suffering potentially deadly and serious conditions are far greater than the benefits that Zyprexa can provide for minor conditions.

Antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa have not been adequately tested for safety in children so before prescribing, understanding the full extent of Zyprexa side effects is essential.

Have you or a loved one suffered from any of these debilitating Zyprexa side effects, such as a Zyprexa coma or heart attack?

* Diabetes
* Pancreatitis
* Hyperglycemia
* Ketoacidosis
* Extreme weight gain
* Diabetic induced heart attack
* Diabetec coma
* Zyprexa coma
* Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS)

About the Author

Do you have a Zyprexa lawsuit?
Have you, a family member, or dear friend been prescribed Zyprexa and are suffering or have suffered a Zyprexa coma or other life threatening side effects caused from taking Zyprexa? You may have a Zyprexa lawsuit. Contact a lawyer familiar with Zyprexa comas and other Zyprexa side effects for a FREE no-obligation consultation today.

———————————————————————————————————————

NEED A Lawyer? Check out our Lawyer Directory!