Disclaimer: Note that the firm is no longer accepting cases for the anti-psychotic medication Abilify or Tylenol autism cases. Thank you.
Select Page

This is Michael Brady Lynch, lead trial attorney for The Michael Brady Lynch Firm.

With the recent filing of a cerebral hemorrhage Pradaxa bleeding lawsuit in the United States District Court for Connecticut, it appears the movement toward a Pradaxa MDL is all but assured.

The latest filing differs from other Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits as the injury of a cerebral hemorrhage is unique to Pradaxa lawsuit filings to date. At least 8 other Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits have involved plaintiffs who have suffered gastrointestinal bleeds after taking Pradaxa.
I anticipate that plaintiffs will file as many as 20 more Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits within the next 30 days. This includes several by myself here at The Michael Brady Lynch Firm. Having been at the forefront of Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits from the very beginning of the litigation, I strongly believe that a Pradaxa MDL would be very good for Pradaxa bleeding litigation. It can help streamline the discovery process.

About an MDL

First, a little background on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) is appropriate. An Act of Congress in 1968 created The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, known informally as the MDL Panel.
The job of the Panel when considering consolidation of Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits is to two things. First, it will determine whether the Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact. Also, if the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Lastly, an MDL selects the judge or judges and court assigned to conduct such proceedings.
One factor in determining the appropriateness of an MDL is the number of lawsuits filed. The number of Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits increase every week. These claims have been filed against Pradaxa manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. They are fueled by the reports of 3,000 reports of Pradaxa side effects. These include 459 deaths, 69 disabilities, and 1,331 hospitalizations all due to Pradaxa bleeding dangers. The FDA has found that patients who use Pradaxa are far more likely to have a “serious bleeding event” compared to those who aren’t on the drug.

Pradaxa MDL22

As this would apply to Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits in a potential MDL setting, once an application was made to the JPML, a hearing would be held where at attorneys would argue for consolidation of Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits in various jurisdictions. The Panel would then decide on the appropriateness of consolidation. If granted, the court will transfer all federal Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits to a single federal judge for centralization.
The purposes of this transfer or “centralization” process are to avoid duplication of discovery in Pradaxa litigation. This prevents inconsistent pretrial rulings. Plus it conserves the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Importantly, transferred Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits not terminated in the transferee district are remanded to their originating transferor districts by the Panel at or before the conclusion of centralized pretrial proceedings.

I myself have been involved in numerous MDL litigations. With the right judge and lawyers involved, an MDL can be an incredible asset to a litigation. I believe in the case of Pradaxa bleeding lawsuits, the time has come for consolidation in a Pradaxa MDL. I will keep my readers apprised of all developments in this regard.
 If you have been a victim of a Pradaxa-related injury or if you or someone you love was taking Pradaxa and suffered a bleeding event, I urge you to contact me directly for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your Pradaxa case.
What Our Clients Are Saying