Xarelto Blood Thinner Lawsuits

Did You Know About Xarelto Blood Thinner Lawsuits?

Xarelto is a pharmaceutical product used for treating low levels of testosterone that can cause erectile dysfunction. It is marketed under several names, such as Proxiphen and Procerin. According to FDA records, the company filed its first lawsuit related to the product in 2000. A plaintiff from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, named Charles J. alleged that Xarelto failed to warn him of the risks associated with the drug and he suffered permanent injury resulting from this treatment.

The FDA also received two other Xarelto lawsuits, one from Philadelphia and one from Tampa, Florida.

Both plaintiffs from these two lawsuits alleged that Xarelto failed to warn them of the risk of heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems associated with using the drug. One of the lawsuits further alleged that Xarelto was aware of the risks of heart attacks long before it sold the product to the public, but failed to warn sufficiently that the drug could cause these conditions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision in favor of the defendant, arguing that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury award because their harm was not caused by the failure of Xarelto to warn them of the risks of the treatment.

In light of these Xarelto Blood Thinner lawsuits, there are two questions that are crucial to analyzing whether or not a potential juror might be able to excuse himself from liability when considering these cases.

First, do plaintiffs have a legitimate reason to sue a pharmaceutical manufacturer? In terms of the FDA, courts have generally held that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover damages from companies that manufacture drugs even if the products cause certain foreseeable harm, such as death. However, if the manufacturer was aware of these risks, but failed to institute reasonable measures to protect the public from the danger, then the manufacturer may be liable. Accordingly, the manufacturer must compensate for its actions.

Second, do plaintiffs have a sufficient claim against the manufacturer to establish a violation of their right to due process and a breach of contract?

Generally, courts have held that a pharmaceutical manufacturer has to warn a person of the risks inherent in the use of a product, and that they must also have a procedure for determining the potential for adverse health consequences that may result from that use. While there may have been warnings in the past, courts have held that drug manufacturers can now create drugs that circumvent these procedures and create a greater risk of adverse health reactions. Therefore, although there may have been warnings in the past, there is no such thing as absolute immunity from civil lawsuits. Additionally, many pharmaceuticals sell their products directly to pharmacies without ever having a distributor to handle the product.

Based on the information in this article, it seems clear that Xarelto Blood Thinner should have placed warning on its label that it contains ingredients that may pose a threat to patients using the drug.

However, the fact remains that plaintiffs in lawsuits related to this product were not aware of these dangers, and therefore suffered unnecessary injuries. This is particularly true considering that many of these plaintiffs have health conditions that make them susceptible to bleeding. Indeed, there are a number of conditions such as hemophilia, thrombosis, and similar conditions that make it extremely risky for individuals to use common thrombotic medications such as warfarin and other anticoagulant agents.

While there are certainly many aspects of the case that require the attention of a qualified expert to adequately evaluate the case, plaintiffs who file lawsuits involving Xarelto Blood Thinner need not wait until they reach a settlement with the manufacturer before they decide to pursue litigation.

Plaintiffs who file lawsuits generally lack the knowledge and expertise to effectively litigate such cases, which often means that they will lose the case. A qualified personal injury attorney should be consulted in order to determine whether or not it would be worth the expense of pursuing such a lawsuit on your behalf. In addition, it is important to note that filing such lawsuits outside of the jurisdiction of a particular district judge can actually have an adverse affect on the strength of your case. For more information regarding this issue, it is strongly recommended that you retain the services of an experienced and skilled personal injury litigation attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *