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.

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!

I often remark that I don’t understand some of the rulings from the Industrial Commission. Here’s an example of one I saw recently.The attorney for the insurance company, GAB Robbins, arranged for my client to be seen for an Independent Medical Examination with a neurosurgeon. The visit went well, according to both the rehabilitation nurse and our client, but the doctor was very slow in producing the medical records from the visit. I requested the records, the defense attorney requested the records, and the rehab nurse requested them. None of us got anything from the doctor.

While this was frustrating for all of us it certainly appeared that the delay was based solely in the doctor’s office. Despite this the attorney for GAB Robbins wrote to the Industrial Commission asking that our client, the injured worker, be ordered to produce the records within 15 days or face termination of her weekly checks. To her credit the defense attorney for GAB Robbins told the Industrial Commission that we had made multiple efforts to obtain the records to no avail.

To our amazement the North Carolina Industrial Commission promptly filed an Order stating that if Dr. So-and-so didn’t produce the records within 15 days the injured workers checks could be terminated. How this threat against the injured worker was going to motivate the defendant’s hand-picked doctor wasn’t stated. Allow me to be very clear here: I don’t think the Industrial Commission was trying to be unfair. The problem is that career government types don’t understand the real world of dealing with doctors, adjusters, and all. That’s how a skilled defense attorney can take advantage of the situation to their clients’ benefit.

This article was written by Todd P. Oxner

We’re glad you decided to visit our user-friendly website. It’s full of free information that will make you smarter as you navigate the complex system of adjusters, lawyers, insurance companies and courts. We specialize in worker’s compensation, social security disability and personal injury cases. Browse through the site and let us know if you have any questions or suggestions. Staff email addresses are included, and we have several personnel who speak Spanish. We’ll help you in your journey to understanding the law and accomplishing justice.

The short answer: No more than 25% of the benefits which the attorney gets for you. We never do that.

The long answer: Some attorneys are demanding 25% of an injured worker’s checks from the moment he walks in their door. We think that is taking advantage of the workers’ comp claimant. That is completely unfair. We don’t take cases if we cannot add value to them — and we don’t expect to get paid until we do. You should never have to give up any of your money (which you need to live on) until the lawyer has done something for you. And filing a couple of form letters with the Industrial Commission isn’t enough to earn a fee. In fact it is virtually unheard of for the NCIC to award a fee of more than 25%.

As a general rule we think it is improper for a lawyer to take a cut of your weekly check unless she actually went to a hearing to get the checks started, or if he kept the checks going at a hearing. But if an attorney asks you to pay them from the minute they represent you, or if they write a couple of letters and make some phone calls to get checks started and then want 25% of your money forever, you should seriously consider whether they are in it for your best interests or just for your money.

This article was written by Todd P. Oxner