Reglan & Tardive Dyskinesia Lawyer Blog

Illinois Reglan Lawyers File For Summary Judgment

Reglan lawyers are allowed to file what is called a motion for summary judgment.  In that motion, the lawyers tell the court that there are no factual issues to decide, but only legal issues.  If there truly are no factual issues, then the court may decide the summary judgment motion.  The loser is “thrown out of court.”  In this case, the Reglan lawyers representing the Reglan manufacturers filed this motion:

This is a products liability case. Plaintiff Shirley Brinkley alleges that she
suffered injuries after ingesting the prescription drug metoclopramide. Cmplt. PP 8-10, 15-16.[FN1] After the completion of product identification discovery, Plaintiff conceded that she did not ingest any product manufactured by Wyeth or Schwarz. Nonetheless, Plaintiff asserts numerous claims against these defendants, arguing that Wyeth and Schwarz (who, at different times manufactured the name brand version of the drug) can be held liable for allegedly failing to adequately warn Plaintiff and her doctors about the risks associated with generic drugs manufactured by other companies. Because Plaintiff never purchased or ingested a Wyeth or Schwarz metoclopramide product, these claims fail as a matter of law.

      FN1. Citations to Plaintiffs Complaint, Doc. No. 2, filed 1/7/08, shall take  the form "Cmplt. P [ ]."

Under well-settled Missouri law, a plaintiff asserting products liability claims
must establish, among other things, that the defendant manufactured or distributed the specific product that injured the plaintiff. A defendant cannot be liable for any harm allegedly caused by another manufacturer's product. In line with this well-settled principle, no Missouri authority -- case law, statute or otherwise -- requires a name brand drug manufacturer (such as Wyeth and Schwarz) to warn about the risks associated with the use of a generic drug manufactured and distributed by another company.

Metoclopramide Attorney Files Movement Disorder Lawsuit in Illinois

In January of 2008, a metoclopramide lawyer representing Shirley Brinkely filed the following lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Brinkley contracted a rare movement disorder after ingesting metoclopramide, which is the generic form of Reglan:

15. Plaintiff's long term ingestion of Reglan, metoclopramide and/or metoclopramide HC1 resulted in overexposure to the drugs Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HC1 which caused her to suffer serious, permanent and disabling neurological injuries, including but not limited to, injuries of or associated with the central nervous and extrapyramidal motor systems, specifically Tardive Dyskinesia.

16. Use of Reglan, metoclopramide HC1 and/or metoclopramide caused Plaintiff to suffer serious, permanent and disabling injuries including but not limited to, injuries of or associated with the central nervous and extrapyramidal motor systems. Because of the injuries Plaintiff suffered from the use of Reglan, metoclopramide HC1 and/or metoclopramide, Plaintiff has experienced and will continue to experience medical and related expenses, loss of ability to provide household services, disfigurement, disability, pain and suffering, psychological injury and other injuries and damages.

17. Plaintiff's serious and permanent injuries, as described above, came about as a foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant Wyeth and Defendant Schwarz (as the Reference Listed Drug and or New Drug Applicant holder and Defendant PLIVA (the abbreviated New Drug Applicant holder) dissemination of inaccurate, misleading, materially incomplete, false, and otherwise inadequate information concerning the potential effects of exposure to Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HC1 and the ingestion of Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HC1 drug to the medical community, physicians, Plaintiff's physician, Plaintiff and other foreseeable users of the drug.

18. Reglan, metoclopramide HC1 and/or metoclopramide was not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for long-term use.

19. Because of the misleading information that the Defendants provided to physicians and the FDA about the true risks associated with the use of Reglan, metoclopramide HC1 and/or metoclopramide and because of the failure of the Defendants and each of them to adequately inform physicians generally, including Plaintiff's physicians, about the true risks associated with the use of Reglan, metoclopramide HC1 and/or metoclopramide, at all times relevant to this lawsuit, while Plaintiff was taking Reglan, metoclopramide HC1, and/or metoclopramide, her physicians never informed her of any side effects associated with Reglan, metoclopramide HC1, metoclopramide or that Reglan, metoclopramide HC1 and/or metoclopramide was only approved for short term use (up to 12 weeks).

20. At all times material hereto, Defendant Wyeth, individually and as successor-in-interest to A.H. Robins Company, was aware of the serious side effects caused by Reglan, metoclopramide HC1 and/or metoclopramide including, but not limited to, central nervous system disorders, depression with suicidal ideation, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, tardive dystonia, visual disturbances and interference with drug metabolism.