Ten plaintiffs have filed a combined lawsuit against Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, Inc. alleging internal bleeding from Eliquis caused them to sustain severe personal injuries.

The plaintiffs consist of several individuals who have taken the anticoagulant medication and have suffered internal bleeding from Eliquis, as well as their spouses who have also suffered injury by losing companionship with their mates.

Plaintiff Gary W. used Eliquis from 2015 to 2016. He suffered an intracranial bleed on Dec. 2, 2016. Plaintiff Roy G. used Eliquis in 2016 and suffered a gastrointestinal bleed in March 2016. His spouse, Regina G., joins the claim. Plaintiff Raymond G. used Eliquis in 2015 until he suffered a gastrointestinal bleed in September of that year. His wife Carole brings forth allegations in the Eliquis lawsuit as well.

Plaintiff Geraldine L. used Eliquis and suffered a gastrointestinal bleed in March of 2015. Plaintiff John R. used Eliquis during 2016 and suffered a gastrointestinal bleed in October of that year and is joined by his wife Debra in the claim. Plaintiff Nathaniel W. states that he used Eliquis during 2015 and suffered a gastrointestinal bleed in June 2015. His spouse Jeanette W. has also joined the Eliquis lawsuit.

Eliquis was released to the market in 2012 and is one of three medications released that belongs to a class of medications known as new generation oral anticoagulants. They were developed to improve upon an older anticoagulant drug, warfarin, that had a number of perceived limitations with its use.

With warfarin, patients need to have frequent blood monitoring to make sure the levels of the drug are stable in their blood for their own personal use and safety. The dosage of warfarin varies per person, and patients taking the drug are required to engage in specialized care. This also requires that they restrict their intake of certain foods.

The new generation oral anticoagulants offers simple daily dosing and less frequent monitoring, and it poses no dietary restrictions.

The plaintiffs state, however, that the clinical trials undertaken that ultimately resulted in FDA approval were flawed and fraudulent.

The plaintiffs claim that the makers of Eliquis failed to alert physicians, patients and the medical community about the dangers associated with the drug’s use, including reports of internal bleeding from Eliquis. The plaintiffs also state that patients and physicians were not adequately warned that a reversal agent for Eliquis did not exist.

When patients took the older anticoagulant warfarin, there was an antidote available to reverse the effects of the blood thinning properties of the drug. Patients could be administered fresh frozen plasma or intravenous vitamin K to reinstate the body’s natural clotting mechanisms. These clotting mechanisms are necessary when the body suffers from a bleed so that the body can slow or stop its own bleeding.

Patients taking Eliquis had no access to a reversal agent when they experienced gastrointestinal bleeds and intracranial bleed like the patients named in the lawsuit claim to have suffered. This can have serious consequences: in some cases, the lack of a reversal agent to counteract internal bleeding from Eliquis could cause patients to die.

The plaintiffs have brought forth a number of allegations against Eliquis manufacturers including negligence, strict products liability, breaches of express and implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, violation of consumer protection laws and loss of consortium (spousal companionship).

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and other noneconomic damages, economic damages for medical expenses, lost earnings and other economic damages, punitive damages in order to punish the defendants, pre-and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and any additional relief as deemed just and proper by the Court.

The Internal Bleeding from Eliquis Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-02046, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.