Mississippi plaintiff Betty H. joins the hundreds of women suing Pfizer for the Liptor type-2 diabetes she allegedly developed while on their statin drug, Lipitor.

Betty was prescribed Lipitor by her doctor in 2003. Like most women, Betty was prescribed Lipitor to lower bad cholesterol (LDL) and as a preventative measure to avoid future cardiovascular disease. Relying on claims made by Pfizer that Lipitor was clinically proven to reduce heart disease risk, Betty took the drug until present day. However, Betty was diagnosed with type-2 diabetes around 2010. She was unaware of the connection between Lipitor and risk of type-2 diabetes, so she did not stop the medication.

Now 82 years of age, Betty must undergo regular testing of her blood glucose levels, maintain a diabetic diet, establish an exercise regimen, and take diabetes medication. Ironically, because Betty took Lipitor in hopes of staying healthy, she is now at an increased risk of heart disease and blindness, as well as potential future complications with her diabetes, including neuropathy and kidney disease.

Like all the other women filing Lipitor type-2 diabetes lawsuits against Pfizer, allegations state that her diabetic condition was preventable. Had Pfizer disclosed the risks associated with Lipitor, Betty could have avoided Lipitor type-2 diabetes by not using it, choosing a different medication, or by monitoring her blood glucose levels. Now, Betty’s Lipitor type-2 diabetes lawsuit claims, “As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants actions or inactions, Plaintiff suffered grievous bodily injury and consequently economic and other losses, including but not limited to pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.”

In this Lipitor type-2 diabetes lawsuit, Betty is suing Pfizer and requesting a jury trial in Mississippi. Her claims include negligence, negligent misrepresentation, design defects, failure to warn, breach of implied and express warranty, fraud and misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

Her Lipitor type-2 diabetes lawsuit joins hundreds of other suits consolidated in the current Lipitor MDL (multidistrict litigation) against Pfizer, In Re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-mn-02502-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division.

Lipitor Complications

As women age, and the odds of cardiovascular disease increase, doctors have taken to prescribing Lipitor, or other statin durgs, to combat this. Statins, with billions of dollars in combined sales annually, are among the best-selling drugs in the United States.

Statins like Lipitor use the liver to block the creation of cholesterol, a key contributor to coronary artery disease. However, while statins do work to keep cholesterol in check, they have some negative side effects.

Reports from studies and adverse event reports note an increased risk of type-2 diabetes after taking Lipitor. This relationship between Lipitor and diabetes is a risk that Pfizer allegedly knew about, but failed to disclose to the public or medical community.

Since the approval of Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1996, Pfizer heavily promoted the drug to consumers. Between 2000 and 2010, the Lipitor direct-to-consumer ad cost almost one and a half billion dollars. The marketing, touting Lipitor’s safety and efficacy, worked, since over 17 million prescriptions for Lipitor have been filled over the years, representing about a quarter of Pfizer’s annual revenue.

However, in 2011, Pfizer’s luck changed. With the FDA receiving a large number of adverse event reports regarding Lipitor, and studies garnering negative attention, the FDA’s Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products told Pfizer to update Lipitor’s warning label to include the diabetes risk. Pfizer didn’t comply until February 2012, which for many, including Betty, was too late.

A number of female plaintiffs still contest that the new warning label is insufficient. The updated label merely mentions a need to be aware of changes in glucose levels in the blood; it does not state the risk of type-2 diabetes outright.