Things are not looking good for the Cymbalta litigation movement, as Eli Lilly & Co. takes a third victory in the legal proceedings.

In their most recent win, the company managed to persuade a federal jury that they had provided adequate safety warnings describing the withdrawal symptoms of Cymbalta.

According to spectating legal experts, the company’s attorneys have a particular edge that may exonerate them from the dozens of similar Cymbalta withdrawal lawsuits.

This recent defeat was against claims filed by Gilda H. and Janine A. in Virginia federal court, adding to two other wins in Cymbalta withdrawal trials in early August 2015 in California federal court.

Additionally, at this stage of the litigation movement, Eli Lilly persuaded federal courts in New York, South Carolina, and other states to dismiss Cymbalta withdrawal lawsuits on summary judgment.

The Virginia federal jury’s ruling was the same conclusion that U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet came to in New York, against plaintiff Jesse M. Judge Sweet had also found Cymbalta’s warning label to be sufficient in warning patients against withdrawal symptoms.

Cymbalta is a popular antidepressant, popularly prescribed to treat major forms of anxiety and depression by leveling certain brain chemicals. Unfortunately, it has been recently found that Cymbalta patients may face a higher risk of suffering severe withdrawal symptoms soon after discontinuing the drug.

A number of patients have reported suffering severe headaches, nausea, vomiting, vertigo, dizziness and electric shock-like sensations in the brain called “brain zaps.”

Cymbalta withdrawal symptoms have been reported to last weeks, or even months in severe cases after discontinuing Cymbalta. These symptoms cause extreme inconvenience to patients, who often suffer from lost work time and further health complications. Despite the severity of these complications, Eli Lilly did not describe these events as such on Cymbalta’s warning label.

Overview of Cymbalta Withdrawal Allegations

According to the Cymbalta warning label, the withdrawal symptoms are a rare and highly unlikely event and will soon resolve themselves. Instead, patients find themselves asking for a prescription renewal to relieve the withdrawal symptoms, which can last months in the worst cases.

The contrast between the patients’ experiences and the warning label has spurred this current litigation movement against Eli Lilly.

Legal experts state that Eli Lilly’s record of successful defense verdicts in the Cymbalta litigation will most likely influence the outcome of other lawsuits and the deciding of whether or not to centralize the remaining claims.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) will begin hearing arguments on Oct. 1, 2015 in Manhattan, to see if 44 claims can be consolidated.

Commenting attorneys stated that it is surprising to see the company achieve victory, which may be due to the defense’s strong argument of presenting the Cymbalta warning label. This is unfortunate for the plaintiffs, as it will most likely contribute heavily to the judicial panel’s decision in granting MDL status.

Plaintiffs had originally filed for consolidation in August 2014 to bring approximately 28 federal Cymbalta withdrawal lawsuits under one judge in California; the judicial panel rejected this motion in December, stating that there were not enough plaintiffs for MDL status.

The plaintiffs filed their second consolidation motion in July 2015, this time in federal court in Indiana where the Eli Lilly’s headquarters is located. Participants argue that the lawsuits they want to consolidate are on the same schedule for the discovery process, which is expected to end towards late 2016.

The plaintiffs argue that consolidation will help streamline the litigation process, and will be beneficial to both sides. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is fighting against the consolidation and is trying to get the lawsuits involved in the potential MDL remanded back into state court.