We all hope that pharmaceutical drug companies have our best interest at heart. We put our trust in them and trust that they are looking out for our health and our wellbeing. Though the unfortunate truth is that sometimes profits are put before patients and drugs that aren’t properly tested make it onto the market, often to disastrous results. One such unsafe drug that appeared recently was a blood thinner produced by Bayer called Xarelto.
When Xarelto appeared on the market it was fast selling, making $567 million in the first quarter alone. In 2015, the drug earned $2 billion worth of revenue. With earnings like that, it’s easy to see why Bayer was so keen to get this drug into pharmacies across the nation. However, the drug had deadly side effects, the worst of which was uncontrollable bleeding.
As one might imagine, this led to more than 4,500 lawsuits being filed against Xarelto’s makers for grievances ranging from financial hardships caused by hospital bills and extended medical care to funeral costs and wrongful deaths.
It can be challenging for a single person to stand up to a major pharmaceutical company such as this, which is why it’s useful to utilize Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)—when a number of cases are brought before a single judge who has a specialized knowledge relevant to the cases. This is exactly the route being taken by those looking to bring litigation against the makers of Xarelto. The cases will be brought before Judge Eldon Fallon in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The first trials of a MDL are referred to as the “Bellweather Trials.” The Bellweather trials are cases specifically chosen to set the tone for all subsequent cases. They help the plaintiff and defense counsel gauge how juries will respond to such cases, and give them a good idea of how similar cases are likely to play out. They can help set precedents and allow a large number of cases pass through the system quickly, yet justly.
The dates for the first four Bellweather trials in the Xarelto litigation have already been set for early 2017. The dates are:
February 6, 2017
March 13, 2017
April 24, 2017
May 30, 2017
Standing up to a large corporation such as a major pharmaceutical company alone can be a challenge. But having someone on your side, whether it’s an experienced, knowledgeable attorney, or thousands of other people who are in your situation and understand what you’re going through, can give you the power to take a stand. Don’t go it alone. Seek help from an attorney to find out what you can do to make sure that your rights are protected.
When a person is injured at work, the impact to the worker is huge, but the effects it can have on the family can be just as devastating. The income that you expected to earn is compromised, often making it difficult to pay rent and bills and to fund retirement and college savings. The financial loss to the family simply isn’t well compensated in the Workers’ Compensation system. This is particularly true for catastrophic injury and death cases in which the victims are unlikely to ever work again.
It is devastating to have your dreams and goals derailed by an injury. It is ten times worse when you feel your injury is hurting the future of your children. That’s why Oxner + Permar supports Kids’ Chance, a charitable organization offering college scholarships to the children of workers who were killed or catastrophically injured at work. As attorneys who care deeply about our clients’ well-being, we want to do everything we can to get the word out there about this important charity—especially because workers who suffer these types of injuries (and their families) have so many other things weighing on their minds.
If you know of a family who might qualify for a Kids’ Chance scholarship, please join us in spreading the word so that we can help as many people as possible through this wonderful charity. As a member of the board for Kids’ Chance of NC, Oxner + Permar is committed to getting the applications into the hands of those who need them. Please visit the Kids’ Chance website for more details.
Hezekiah Hardee’s father was seriously injured on the job, but through Kids’ Chance of NC, Hezekiah was able to earn a scholarship that made his dreams of attending college come true. Read his story
In a closely watched case, a Federal Appeals Court has reversed a decision from a lower court, which threw out an expert’s opinion because the court said it was unreliable. The case, Seamon v. Remington Arms Company, LLC, is a tragic case surrounding the mysterious death of the plaintiff’s husband who was shot by his own Remington Model 700 rifle. The decedent, Mr. Seamon, went deer hunting and when he didn’t return, his family went looking for him and found him dead in his elevated tree stand with a single gunshot wound to his chest. Mr. Seamon’s Remington Model 700 rifle was found on the ground thirteen feet below attached to a rope that wrapped around the rifle’s scope and safety. The safety mechanism was off and there was a spent cartridge in the chamber, but there was no gunshot residue on Mr. Seamon’s body or clothing, leading law enforcement to conclude that the rifle was at least five to ten feet away from Mr. Seamon when it fired. Moreover, Mr. Seamon’s left hand was clenched around the front rail of the tree stand and his right hand was positioned as if he had been grasping something. The obvious question was how was Mr. Seamon shot?
Mrs. Seamon, the plaintiff, alleged that her husband died when the rifle accidently discharged because of defects with the trigger system. The Remington Model 700 contains the Walker fire control system, which is different than other trigger systems in that even a very slight movement of one of the parts allows the rifle to fire accidently. According to Ms. Seamon’s expert, Mr. Powell, rifles with Walker triggers have fired unexpectedly a number of times in testing reported by Remington Arms. According to Mr. Powell, little things like dirt, corrosion deposits, moisture, firing deposits and manufacturing residue can prevent the trigger parts from engaging correctly, making the rifle subject to unexpected firing. During testing, Mr. Powell found particles and deposits in the fire control housing, which he said have been show to cause interference in the Walker system and cause rifles to fire without interaction with the trigger. Mr. Powell concluded that the rifle might have gone off unexpectedly when it came into contact with the tree, rope or the ground.
The trial court struck Mr. Powell’s opinion as to why the Remington Model 700 discharged, because it said that his opinion was “speculative” and therefore, unreliable, and dismissed Ms. Seamon’s lawsuit against Remington. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated the case. The appellate court concluded that Mr. Powell had provided sufficient factual support for his opinion and that the trial court had “manifestly erred by mischaracterizing Powell’s opinion and the evidence supporting it . . . .”
Seamon v. Remington Arms Company, LLC demonstrates once again how complicated the law can be, and how important it is to have on your side experienced and knowledgeable legal representation like the lawyers at Oxner + Permar ,PLLC. If you find yourself with a complicated legal question, call us and take advantage of our decades of legal experience. You will be glad you did!
In handling workers’ comp cases, we have found that company doctors may downplay the severity of accidents that occur at work. Injured workers come to attorneys complaining of problems that continue to hurt weeks after the incident. Or worse, they are concerned because they received an icepack and a band-aid from the company doctor when it’s clear that they should have been taken to the emergency room — by ambulance. What can be done and who’s to blame? Doctors report to others up the corporate ladder and profits can be more important than employee well-being. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) keeps track of reported safety concerns and incidents. Doctors and staff are under pressure to keep any concerns quiet to avoid fines for safety violations. The Whistleblower Protection Program gives rights to employees who notify OSHA of any concerns. The US Government Accountability Office has urged quicker audits and more worker interviews when concerns are reported — and also reviews at random intervals to help combat inaccurate corporate injury reporting.
Yes. And they do. All the time. They didn’t use to be allowed to do that, but very very often they did anyway. Successful lobbying with Gov. McCrory and the political leaders in the legislature lead to a huge change in the law. Now employers can talk to your doctor but are not required to tell you immediately that the conversation occurred or what the details of the conversation were.
Is this necessarily bad? While we doubt that doctors are engaged in conniving with adjusters we don’t really understand what all the secrecy is about. The old law required the adjuster or employer to write to the doctor but to let the injured worker see the letter before it went out so that they could ask for anything to be added. That seemed really fair. Why did insurance adjusters and employers want this changed? It doesn’t seem to be an exaggeration to say they must have had a motive if they were going to lobby the government to change that requirement. So it’s fair to say that they specifically want to be able to communicate with the doctor.
