Reglan & Tardive Dyskinesia Lawyer Blog

Texas Reglan Attorney Files Movement Disorder Lawsuit In Dallas

This lawsuit is a little unusual because it is a wrongful death lawsuit.  James Willett developed Tardive Dyskinesia while taking Metoclopramide, and as such, he was unable to receive a transplant.  This is a lawsuit filed against the manufacturer and the seller of the Metoclopramide he ingested.

14. The drug in question was an unreasonably dangerous product, subject to strict
product liability in tort, because it presented an unreasonable risk of the
development of tardive dyskinesia and other injuries and, in fact, caused the
injuries and the damages which Plaintiffs have suffered. The drug was unsafe for
its intended purposes at the time it left the control of Defendant TEVA and was
sold. The foreseeable risks of the drug exceeded the benefits associated with its
formulation. The drug was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect.

15. The drug in question was unaccompanied by proper warnings regarding the degree
of risk for tardive dyskenisia. The warnings accompanying the drug in question did
not accurately reflect the nature, scope, or severity of the potential for injury
from the use of the drug.

16. Metoclopramide, as manufactured and/or supplied, by Defendants is a defective
product due to inadequate post-marketing warnings and instructions. After
Defendants knew or should have known that metoclopramide posed dangers and risks
to potential patients, Defendants failed to take steps to warn and/or cause
consumers, potential consumers, and health care professionals to be advised of
such dangers and risks.

17. The defective and unreasonably dangerous drug metoclopramide and the described
defects were a producing cause of the damages and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs
set out hereinbelow. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under the doctrine of
strict liability as contained in s402A of the Restatement Second of the Law of
Torts as adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas.

Reglan Attorney Alleges that Reglan Manufacturers Knowingly Sell a Defective Product

In this document, which was filed in Mensing v. Wyeth, the Reglan lawyer representing the plaintiff alleges that manufacturers of Reglan or its generic form, Metoclopramide, are knowingly selling a defective product with an inadequate warning label:

The position created by the melding of the Defendants' arguments here creates a “Catch-22” for any plaintiff who is permanently injured by the misrepresented adverse effects of the drug MCP. The name brand manufacturer, Schwarz contends that it owes no duty regarding its misrepresentations in the label of its name brand drug that misstates the actual risk of developing EPS, because Plaintiff did not consume its pills, and only direct product liability claims should be recognized against it. Then, to complete the ironic situation, generic manufacturers argue that the drugs they made that were consumed by Plaintiff - - even if defective for their own misstatements - - are not susceptible to suit either, because their “hands were tied”[FN21] by having to follow the false statements of the name brand manufacturer.

FN21. Unfortunately, the generic manufacturers choose to continue to keep manufacturing and selling generic MCP in light of their knowledge that the label is false.

If the Defendants' arguments, taken as a whole, are correct, Plaintiff would have no remedy for developing tardive dyskinesia, a life-altering, permanent injury that could have been avoided with a simple, accurate statement about the dangers associated with MCP, rather than misstatements. As a result, if the Defendants are correct, the tort system will not only have failed Plaintiff, but it will fail every doctor who prescribes MCP in the future or their patient who will needlessly develop EPS because none of the Defendants will have been found to have a legal duty to accurately state the risks associated with MCP. However, this result should not be the case in light of the duties continued in the Restatement and Minnesota law. In turn, Schwarz's motion should be denied.

Movement Disorder Attorneys List Metoclopramide Side Effects In Reglan Lawsuit

The association between Reglan and movement disorders has long been known.  This lawsuit, Mensing v. Wyeth, alleges that the manufacturers of Reglan and its generic form, metoclopramide, should have done more to warn patients of the risks of developing movement disorders:

26. On or about March 23, 2001, Plaintiffs physician prescribed Reglan at a dosage of 5 mg, b.i.d., to treat Plaintiffs diabetic gastroparesis.

27.The active ingredient, metoclopramide and metoclopramide HCl is a dopamine antagonist.

28.Subsequently, Plaintiffs physician increased Plaintiffs dosage to 10 mg to be taken four (4) times a day.

29. Subsequently, Plaintiffs physician increased the dosage of Plaintiffs prescription for Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl, and prescribed it to Plaintiff for several years thereafter.

30. Upon information and belief, in prescribing the Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl drugs to Plaintiff on a long-term basis, Plaintiffs physicians relied upon information published in the package inserts and/or the Physician's Desk Reference (hereinafter “PDR”) or otherwise disseminated by the Reference Listed Drug Company (hereinafter “RLD”) and/or the New Drug Application Holder (hereinafter “NDA holder”), in particular, that information disseminated by Defendants Wyeth and Schwarz.

31.Plaintiff ingested Reglan, metoclopramide and/or metoclopramide HCl, as prescribed.

32.Plaintiffs long term ingestion of Reglan, metoclopramide and/or metoclopramide HCl caused her injuries.

33. Plaintiffs physicians were not aware of information different from or contrary to the inaccurate, misleading, materially incomplete, false and/or otherwise inadequate information disseminated in the PDR.

34. Wyeth and Schwarz, as the RLD and/or NDA holders, provided misleading information about the true risks associated with the use of Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl to the medical community, Plaintiffs Physician, and Plaintiff (and other foreseeable users similarly situated).

35. On or about March of 2005, Plaintiff was taken to Plaintiffs physician, who discontinued Plaintiffs Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl prescription due to the clinical presentation of lip smacking and tongue thrusting movements.

36. On or about September of 2005, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Bruce A. Evans, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, who diagnosed her as suffering from drug induced Tardive Dyskinesia related to her long-term use of Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl.

37. Plaintiff used the pharmaceutical drugs Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl without substantial change in condition of the drugs between the time of design and manufacture of the drugs and the time Plaintiff used the drugs as directed.

38. Plaintiffs use of Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl drugs, as prescribed, resulted in overexposure to the drugs Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl which 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, specifically Tardive Dyskinesia, a severe and often permanent disfiguring neurological movement disorder.

39. Plaintiffs serious and permanent injuries, as described above, came about as a foreseeable and proximate result of the RLD and/or NDA holder and the ANDA holders dissemination of inaccurate, misleading, materially incomplete, false, and otherwise inadequate information concerning the potential effects of exposure to Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl and the ingestion of Reglan, metoclopramide, and/or metoclopramide HCl drug to the medical community, physicians, Plaintiffs physician, Plaintiff and other foreseeable users of the drug.