Nearly one hundred plaintiffs have joined together to file a Pradaxa mass tort against the makers of the blood thinning medication, Pradaxa.

Each of the ninety-four plaintiffs in this Pradaxa mass tort has similar stories, and the group has banded together against Boehringer Ingelheim to hold the company accountable for uncontrollable bleeding events asociated with Pradaxa.

According to this Pradaxa mass tort, the plaintiffs believe that the drug makers knew about the harmful effects of their drug, yet failed to inform the public and the medical community.

The plaintiffs in this Pradaxa mass tort agree that “Pradaxa was defectively designed, manufactured, and marketed by defendants and that defendants failed to provide appropriate warnings and instructions regarding the dangers posed by Pradaxa.”

They suffered similar injuries, they claim, as a result of Boehringer Ingelheim’s “wrongful conduct” which includes their failure to adequately conduct efficacy and safety studies and their failure to warn patients and doctors about risks of uncontrollable bleeding.

Additionally, the Pradaxa mass tort claims, Boehringer Ingelheim was not responsible when it came to marketing Pradaxa with integrity as well as being responsible for wrongful conduct in designing, developing, marketing and distributing Pradaxa.

Together, the plaintiffs in this Pradaxa mass tort are bringing claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, gross negligence and punitive damages.

This Pradaxa Mass Tort is Case No. 4:17-cv-01971 in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Court, St. Louis City.

Pradaxa Excessive Bleeding Events

Most people, like the plaintiffs in this Pradaxa mass tort, do not expect to suffer from unnecessary and possibly even fatal side effects as a result of taking a blood thinning medication. However, Pradaxa has been linked with thousands of adverse bleeding events and hundreds of deaths.

Pradaxa was approved for use as a blood thinning medication in 2010. It entered the market along with a couple other direct thrombin inhibitors designed to be superior to a blood thinner that has been used for years, warfarin.

Pradaxa was superior to warfarin, drug makers claimed, in that it did not need as much blood monitoring and the patient did not need to drastically change his or her diet.

However, what the drug makers failed to adequately make clear, according to the plaintiffs, was that in the case of an excessive bleeding event, Pradaxa did not have an antidote. If a warfarin patient were to become injured and need the clotting abilities of the blood, a simple administration of vitamin K would help that patient.

Pradaxa, as well as its counterparts, Eliquis and Xarelto, did not have such an antidote. In fact, it was not until five years after Pradaxa was approved that Praxbind, a Pradaxa reversal agent, was approved.

In that interim, many Pradaxa patients suffered uncontrollable bleeding events, many of which resulted in fatalities. Excessive bleeding can result in hemorrhaging in the body, including brain hemorrhage and gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

In 2011 alone, 3,781 Pradaxa bleeding events were reported to the FDA including 500 deaths.

If you or someone you love has been adversely affected by Pradaxa, you may qualify to file a Pradaxa lawsuit.