An Eliquis lawsuit has been removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc. both consented to the removal, but named defendant McKesson Corporation was not required to give consent because the court deemed McKesson had been fraudulently joined to the case.

Court documents say, “The sole charge directed at McKesson is the conclusory allegation that McKesson packaged, marketed, supplied, sold, and distributed Eliquis in California. This allegation alone is insufficient to state a cause of action, as Plaintiffs fail to plead facts establishing that McKesson’s acts were wrongful or the proximate cause of their injuries.”

The Eliquis lawsuit was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs. Four of the plaintiffs are suing over the wrongful death of a family member. The other four plaintiffs allege Eliquis caused them internal bleeding that led to 10 to 14 days in the hospital.

Why the Eliquis Lawsuit?

In 2007, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer combined forces to produce and market Eliquis.

The FDA approved the marketing of Eliquis in 2012 as an anticoagulant that could be used in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Unfortunately, this approval was based for the most part on flawed clinical trials allegedly overseen by incompetent and untrustworthy people in China.

Testing agents are accused of fraud for failing to report a death during the study; not following up with subjects; making dispensing errors that resulted in some subjects not even receiving the drug at all; poor overall quality control; and falsifying records. In one instance, records went missing – supposedly on the order of a Bristol-Myers Squibb employee – just before the FDA made a site visit.

Eliquis Lawsuit Targets Bleeding Issues

One of the main selling points of Eliquis is that it does not have to be monitored in the blood. Its main competitor, warfarin, does require monitoring blood levels in order to maintain a therapeutic level.

However, warfarin has an antidote. If someone is bleeding excessively while on warfarin, a reversal medication can be given to stop the hemorrhaging.

No such antidote exists for Eliquis. Plaintiffs say the manufacturers of Eliquis omitted the fact that with no way to mitigate the drug’s effects, gastrointestinal bleeding and brain bleeding could have unavoidable, fatal consequences.

Four of the eight plaintiffs in this Eliquis lawsuit have filed suit because loved ones have died after using Eliquis.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer allegedly knew of the hemorrhaging issues with the drug but never disclosed these dangers to the medical community, nor to the public. In addition, the manufacturers have not disclosed any data on the number of severe adverse reactions.

Even with the risk of uncontrollable internal bleeding, Eliquis had sales of $774 million in 2014. The medication was not only marketed to the public via television commercials, but also to the medical community. According to ProPublica, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer have paid more than $45.4 million to physicians and teaching hospitals.

The Eliquis Lawsuit is Case No. 3:17-cv-01286 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.