Motion Filed By GSK Attempts To Dismiss Zofran Lawsuit

GlaxoSmithKline has filed a motion requesting that Judge F. Dennis Saylor dismiss all Zofran lawsuits consolidated in MDL 2657. Continue reading →

Jan 23, 2016 /prREACH/ -- In response to the growing Zofran litigation, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has filed a motion requesting that all federally filed Zofran lawsuits be dismissed. The company has stated that they believe there is enough evidence on public record to show that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wouldn’t update Zofran’s warning label in the way that plaintiffs are alleging it should have been.

It isn’t surprising that the company filed this motion. Over the last two years, more than 200 lawsuits have been filed against GSK, each one alleging that Zofran caused a birth defect in an unborn child. Plaintiffs have also alleged that the drug’s label should have been updated to include information regarding the risk of possible birth defects.

In response to GSK, plaintiffs have filed an answer saying that the motion is “unripe, unprecedented, and violates established federal law.”

Judge F. Dennis Saylor met with both parties on January 14th, 2016, to review the motion filed by GSK. No announcement has been made regarding his determination at this time.

By filing complaints, the plaintiffs are seeking compensation for medical expenses and the pain and suffering experienced by their children. The children noted in the complaints have been diagnosed with a variety of birth defects, including atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, transposition of the greater vessels, cleft lip, cleft palate, clubfoot, and respiratory distress syndrome. Nearly every child has required at least one surgery in order to treat and correct their defect, and the majority of children need ongoing medical care. Their parents have alleged that these birth defects and subsequent surgeries have affected their child’s quality of life.

In October of 2015, MDL 2657 was formed, which consolidated Zofran lawsuits and moved them to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both GSK and all plaintiffs were in favor of the consolidation because in the long run it would save all parties involved time and money.