The following lawsuit was filed by Elizabeth Conte in California. It alleges that Metoclopramide is a defective drug because it can cause a variety of movement disorders:
38. Metoclopramide was "defective" and "unreasonably dangerous" when the product
initially was patented, and subsequently when it was promoted and entered into the
stream of commerce and was received by Elizabeth Conte, in one or more of the
following respects:(a) At the time metoclopramide left the control of TEVA, PLIVA, PUREPAC, and DRUG
COMPANY DOES 1 THROUGH 6 it was defective and unreasonably dangerous due to a
failure to contain adequate warnings or instructions, or, in the alternative,
because it was designed in a defective manner, or, in the alternative, because the
product breached an express warranty or failed to conform to other expressed
factual representations upon which Elizabeth Conte's physicians justifiably
relied, or because it breached an implied warranty, all of which proximately
caused the damages for which Plaintiff seek recovery herein.(b) Metoclopramide was not reasonably safe as designed, taking into account the
foreseeable risks involved in its use at the time the product left the possession
of TEVA, PLIVA, PUREPAC, and DRUG COMPANY DOES 1 THROUGH 6 and that such risks
clearly outweighed the utility of the product or its therapeutic benefits.(c) Metoclopramide was not reasonably safe due to inadequate or defective warnings
or instructions that were known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time
the product left the possession of the Drug Company Defendants. Specifically,
although TEVA, PLIVA, PUREPAC, and DRUG COMPANY DOES 1 THROUGH 6 were well aware
that metoclopramide could potentially cause central nervous system side effects,
depression with suicidal ideation, akathisia, akinesia, tardive dyskinesia,
tardive dystonia, visual disturbances and interference with the metabolism of
other prescription drugs and in fact, had significantly greater prevalence and
severity of these side effects in patients with diabetes mellitus, warnings of
such adverse health conditions were either not included on the package insert for
these products or they were not adequate to inform reasonably prudent physicians
and consumers.(d) The warnings or instructions of TEVA. PLIVA, PUREPAC, and DRUG COMPANY DOES 1
THROUGH 6 were not of a nature that a reasonable prudent drug company in the same
or similar circumstances would have provided with respect to the danger. There
were no warnings or instructions that communicated sufficient information on the
dangers and safe use of the product taking into account the characteristics of the
product, and/or the ordinary knowledge common to the physician who prescribes and
the consumer who purchases the product, such as the Plaintiff Elizabeth Conte.
Continue reading "California Reglan Lawsuit Discusses Side Effects of Reglan and Metoclopramide" »