What Kinds of Darvocet/Darvon Injury Lawsuits Are Most Viable?

Thousands of people have filed personal injury lawsuits after they suffered injuries from the use of Darvocet/Darvon pain medications.  However, not all of these people may find that their lawsuits are strong enough to stand up in court.

All of these personal injury lawsuits allege that the use of propoxyphene containing medications like Darvon and propoxyphene/acetaminophen containing drugs like Darvocet, have caused a number of side effects.  Some of the most serious side effects include cardiac injuries, suicidal tendencies, suicidal fantasies, addiction, breathing difficulties, chest pain, shortness of breath, convulsions and seizures.  Less serious side effects include dizziness, chest pain, nausea, dry mouth, vomiting, constipation, headaches and stomach upset.

However, most of the injury lawsuits that have been filed against Eli Lilly and Xanodyne involve the most serious side effects of these medications, like cardiac problems.  Unfortunately, not all of these lawsuits will have a leg to stand on in court. 

Your Darvocet injury lawyer must be able to prove in court that these medications caused serious cardiovascular injuries even when they were taken at the recommended dose.  Your Darvocet injury lawyer must also prove that the medication was the specific cause of your injuries.

Under the circumstances, the most viable and strongest Darvocet injury lawsuits are likely to be those filed by younger people who were not at a high risk for cardiovascular illnesses before they began taking the medication.  Additionally, people who were taking only the recommended dose of Darvocet and were doing so under physician advice are likely to have stronger lawsuits. 

In contrast, people who took higher doses of these medications than recommended, or have a pre-existing cardiac condition may find it a challenge to prove that their injuries were a direct result of Darvocet use.  Even people who have other risk factors for heart conditions like hypertension, high triglyceride levels or diabetes, may also find it a challenge to prove that their cardiac injuries were the direct result of Darvon use.

What Supreme Court Decision Means for Generic Darvocet Injury Lawsuits

The Supreme Court just handed down a significant ruling that could impact hundreds of generic Darvocet injury lawsuits filed by California Darvocet injury lawyers.  The Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers of generic pharmaceutical drugs cannot be liable for their failure to warn users about the possible side effects of the drugs, if they used the exact same warning that is found on the brand-name equivalents.

The 5-4 Supreme Court decision came in the case, Pliva v. Mensing involving two women who had suffered injuries from the use of a generic version of a metoclopramide drug.  The two women used generic versions of medication commonly sold under the more popular brand name, Reglan. 

They filed a lawsuit against a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers of generic drugs for failure to warn that the medication came with the risk of a rare disorder known as tardive dyskinesia.  This is a movement disorder, in which the person may suffer from involuntary facial and leg movements.  The person may be prone to grimacing, smacking of lips, chewing and rapid eye movements.  There is no cure for the disorder.

However, the generic pharmaceutical companies appealed to the US Supreme Court.  Their argument was that they were not permitted under federal laws from having warning labels that were different from the labels on the branded medications.  They should, therefore, be granted immunity from any lawsuit arising out of failure to warn patients about the risks of developing the disorder.  The Supreme Court has now agreed with them, and found that the two women's claims were preempted by federal law. 

Consider that the generic drug market accounts for 75% of all prescription drugs dispensed in the country every year.  That is a huge population of prescription drug users who may have their rights to redress impacted my this Supreme Court ruling.

Exactly How Many People Have Died from Darvon and Darvocet Injuries?

In November, the Food and Drug Administration recalled propoxyphene, sold under the brand names Darvon and Darvocet, from the American market.  The agency's action was triggered by concerns over the drug’s health risks, especially its links to cardiac disease and heart attacks. 

However, concern over the drug goes back several decades.  Back in the 1970's, consumer advocacy group Public Citizen filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration asking the government to ban the drug.  That petition was unsuccessful, and in 2006, Public Citizen again petitioned the FDA to ban propoxyphene.  It would take four more years for the federal government to heed Public Citizen’s calls. 

According to a Swedish doctor who has been researching the side effects of Darvon and Darvocet since 1993, the number of people who have died from the use of propoxyphene could be much higher than the federal administration believes.  According to him, considering that propoxyphene has always been a widely prescribed painkiller, the number of deaths worldwide from propoxyphene could easily run into the hundreds of thousands.

In fact, the doctor, Ulf Jonasson firmly believes that had the Food and Drug Administration enforced a ban on propoxyphene years earlier, it could have saved thousands of lives.  The United Kingdom enforced a ban on propoxyphene in 2005.  Had the Food and Drug Administration followed suit back then, Darvon injury lawyers believe that as many as 1,000 to 2,000 American lives might have been saved.  The Food and Drug Administration has been aware about research indicating the links between propoxyphene and heart attacks at least since 1999.

It's not hard to understand why the agency often delays action against defective pharmaceutical drugs.  The agency continues to be heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies, and while there have been recent moves to stem the links between the agency and Big Pharma, the agency has frequently chosen to turn a blind eye to the side effects of certain drugs.

Panel To Decide on Centralization of Darvon, Darvocet Lawsuits

California Darvon injury lawyers are waiting for the decision of a judicial panel, that will decide whether to centralize thousands of lawsuits that claim cardiac-related injuries from the use of the painkillers Darvon and Darvocet.  Last month, the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation began hearing arguments.  The court will decide whether all Darvon and Darvocet lawsuits for the country should be consolidated into a single lawsuit in a single court.

Thousands of Darvon and Darvocet users from around the country have filed lawsuits against the manufacturer of the drug, Xanodyne.  These lawsuits have alleged serious or fatal injuries from the use of the drug.  These injuries are mostly related to cardiac problems associated with the use of these medications.  Many users who took the drug have, over a period of time, developed cardiac injuries, specifically cardiac arrhythmia. 

The active ingredient in Darvon and Darvocet is propoxyphene.  This is an opiate narcotic that is used to treat mild to moderate pain.  It has been available on the American market for more than 50 years, and since 2009, close to 10 million people in the US have been prescribed the drug. 

In Europe, safety regulators have moved quickly to ban the drug.  Britain banned the drug in 2005, and the European Union moved to do the same in 2009.  However, in the U.S., in 2009, the Food and Drug Administration ordered that a boxed warning be placed on the packaging of the drug, warning patients about the risks from taking the drug in excess.  The Food and Drug Administration also ordered the company to re-evaluate the risks of taking the medication, especially risks associated with cardiac safety.

Not surprisingly, Xanodyne has been opposed to the consolidation of litigation, because the company wants the merits of each individual plaintiff’s case to be considered on its own.  In case of consolidation, the company wants litigation to proceed in Kentucky, where it is headquartered.