Pradaxa Victim Details ER Experience in MDL Filing

Plaintiff James Wehrman filed a Pradaxa lawsuit on Nov. 8, 2013. The Texas man claims that he and his doctor didn’t know about the full Pradaxa risks.

According to the Pradaxa lawsuit, Wehrman “was prescribed Pradaxa in or around November 2011 for his medically necessary blood-thinning needs. On or about March 2, 2012, Plaintiff was taken to the emergency room at Citizen’s Medical Center in Victoria, Texas complaining of shortness of breath, dyspnea on exertion and chest pain as well has having black tarry stools two days prior to admittance. He noted that over the last couple of months, he had become increasingly fatigued and had to decrease his physical activity. … The doctors recommended waiting on the needed diagnostic testing because Plaintiff was on Pradaxa and had to wait the three days until it had left his system.”

“While in telemetry, Plaintiff suddenly became hypotensive with a drop in his hemoglobin and hematocrit and was moved to medical intensive care unit for aggressive care,” Wehrman’s Pradaxa lawsuit says. “He received a transfusion of six units of packed red blood cells in addition to intravenous fluid support.”

Prior to the availability of the drug, warfarin was the only anti-coagulant on the market. Both are designed to thin the blood and potentially prevent strokes. However, there is currently no antidote to Pradaxa. Wehrman says his Pradaxa bleeding “was controlled by stapling of the Dieulafory lesion as well as an epinephrine injection. Plaintiff was discharged on or about March 8, 2012, with the recommendation to begin either Warfarin or Coumadin instead of Pradaxa due to the readily available antidote and reversibility in case he has a gastrointestinal bleed in the future. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused and/or worsened by his use of Pradaxa.”

He’s joining a host of other victims in the Pradaxa multidistrict litigation (MDL) who share similar stories.

According to Wehrman’s Pradaxa lawsuit, “Prior to Plaintiff’s use of Pradaxa, Defendants knew or should have known of the defective nature of Pradaxa and persons who were prescribed and ingested Pradaxa for even a brief period of time, including the Plaintiff, were at increased risk for developing life threatening bleeds. Defendants, through their affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, concealed from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s physicians the true and significant risks associated with Pradaxa use.”

However, Wehrman says that the warnings were simply inadequate. “Plaintiff was unaware of the increased risk for developing life-threatening injuries as compared to warfarin. Had Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s healthcare provider known of the risks and dangers associated with Pradaxa, as well as the lack of additional benefits, and had Defendants provided adequate warnings that there is no agent to reverse the anticoagulation effects of Pradaxa, Plaintiff would not have used Pradaxa.”

Pradaxa was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in 2010. In just a few years on the market, a number of Pradaxa victims have filed similar claims as Wehrman. He also claims that the drugmakers overpromoted the benefits of Pradaxa and failed to adequately warn about the risks. “Defendants promoted Pradaxa as a novel medicine for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Defendants’ marketing campaign for Pradaxa included promoting it as being more effective than warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism, providing a convenient alternative to warfarin therapy because it does not require blood monitoring or dose adjustments, and does not require any dietary restrictions.”

Four Years of Risky Business?

In his Pradaxa claim, Wehrman says that “As part of their marketing of Pradaxa, Defendants widely disseminated direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns that were designed to influence patients, including Plaintiff, to make inquiries to their prescribing physician about Pradaxa and/or request prescriptions for Pradaxa.” Additionally, “significant” money was spent on detailing sessions and advertising campaigns, but Wehrman alleges there was never appropriate mention of the Pradaxa side effects.

“In the course of these direct to consumer advertisements, Defendants overstated the efficacy of Pradaxa with respect to preventing stroke and systemic embolism, failed to adequately disclose to patients that there is no drug, agent or means to reverse the anticoagulation effects of Pradaxa, and that such irreversibility could have permanently disabling, life-threatening and fatal consequences.” Wehrman alleges that the full risks of the drug were never revealed to him.

There are hundreds of reports of Pradaxa complications. “From October 2010 until the end of March 2011, approximately 272,119 prescriptions for Pradaxa were written in the United States. During that same period, there were 932 Pradaxa-associated “Serious Adverse Event” (“SAE”) Medwatch reports filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including at least 120 deaths and over 500 reports of sever, life-threatening bleeding.”

Wehrman is suing for failure to warn, design defect, negligence, negligent misrepresentation/fraud, breach of warranties, negligence per se, fraudulent concealment and punitive damages.

The Pradaxa lawsuit is James W. Wehrman v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-51678-DRH-SCW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. It has joined In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liabiltiy Litigation, MDL No.: 2385, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Did You Suffer Pradaxa Complications?

If you took Pradaxa and experienced side effects, you may qualify for a Pradaxa legal claim and deserve compensation. Read more at the Pradaxa Internal Bleeding Class Action Lawsuit Investigation today. Once your information is received, an attorney will contact you if you qualify for a free Pradaxa claim review.