Woman Sues Pradaxa Maker for Massive Hemorrhage

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Pradaxa is a blood thinning medication that’s been the target of growing litigation over causing severe and excessive bleeding in hundreds of users. These Pradaxa lawsuits allege that the drug maker, Boehringer Ingelheim, put the the blood thinner on the market without an antidote to reverse bleeding should it occur, and overstated Pradaxa’s benefits while hiding its risks.

The latest Pradaxa user to sue Beohringer is plaintiff Loretta Taylor, who was prescribed the blood thinner in April 2012. Taylor says shortly thereafter, she was hospitalized for four days due to gastrointestinal bleeding and massive hemorrhage.

“Plaintiff experienced excessive and/or uncontrollable bleeding, which was caused and/or worsened by Plaintiff’s use of Pradaxa. Blood thinning medications were stopped because of Plaintiff’s May 2012 GI bleed and in July 2012, Plaintiff suffered a cerebrovascular accident,” her Pradaxa lawsuit states.

Fortunately, Taylor survived her Pradaxa bleeding incident but other patients aren’t so lucky. There have been at least 237 Pradaxa deaths reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and over 1,000 reports of injuries since the drug came on the market. As a result, hundreds of Pradaxa lawsuits have been filed by victims and their families, who are seeking compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and more.

Pradaxa Bleeding Reports Grow

Taylor filed her Pradaxa lawsuit on Oct. 18, 2013 and joins thousands of other Pradaxa victims who experienced first-hand just how dangerous Pradaxa can allegedly be.

At first, the drug was promising and has proven profitable for Boehringer.

“Pradaxa is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to reduce to the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Patients with atrial fibrillation have an increased risk of stroke. Pradaxa was approved by the FDA on October 19, 2010. The FDA approved two dosages: 75 mg and 150 mg, to be taken twice daily,” Taylor’s lawsuit explains.

“Pradaxa was the first anticoagulation medication approved in the U.S. in more than 50 years for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Prior to the FDA’s approval of Pradaxa, warfarin was the only oral anticoagulation available in the U.S. for reducing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Unlike patient who use Pradaxa, users of warfarin must follow dietary restrictions and regularly monitor the clotting tendency of their blood (INR) by undergoing blood tests and potentially adjusting the dose of their medication.”

According to Pradaxa complaints, doctors and patients alike were never warned about the big differences between Pradaxa and warfarin.

“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.”

There was no mention that Pradaxa could cause hemorrhaging or a “bleed out,” according to many Pradaxa lawsuits.

“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,” Pradaxa survivors like Taylor say.

Nobody was prepared for handling Pradaxa complications that had no fix.

“Defendants failed to warn emergency room doctors, surgeons and other critical care medical professionals that unlike generally known measures taken to treat and stabilize bleeding in users of warfarin, there is not effective agent to reverse the anticoagulation effects of Pradaxa, and therefore no effective means to treat and stabilize patients who experience uncontrolled bleeding while taking Pradaxa.”

A Terrifying Experience

Taylor’s hospitalization was likely a terrifying ordeal for her and her family.

“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 of developing life-threatening bleeds. Defendants, through their affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, concealed form Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s physicians the true and significant risks associated with Pradaxa use.”

However, just because Taylor survived doesn’t mean it’s not without lifelong injuries.

“As a direct and proximate result of using Pradaxa, Plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life, as well as the need for lifelong medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications and fear of developing any of the above named health consequences all resulting from Plaintiff’s ingestion of Pradaxa.”

Taylor says she was kept in the dark about the real risk of Pradaxa side effects.

Taylor “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.”

The Pradaxa lawsuit is Loretta Taylor v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No.: 3:13-cv-60034-DRH-SWC, in the United States District Court District of Minnesota.

Help for Pradaxa Bleeding Victims

If you survived Pradaxa complications or a loved one was killed by the drug, you may have a Pradaxa legal claim. Learn more by visiting the Pradaxa Internal Bleeding Class Action Lawsuit Investigation page. Submit your information and an attorney will be in touch if you qualify for a complimentary Pradaxa claim review.