Dangerous Drug Lawyers At The Beasley Firm
For over 50 years, The Beasley Firm has advocated for patients and consumers injured by corporate negligence and greed. We have not shied away from suing multinational banks, mercenary contractors, insurance companies, national media companies and other powerful corporations to ensure their victims are fairly compensated. Through those settlements and verdicts, we have recovered over $2 billion for our clients.
We bring the same passion to our representation of patients and consumers injured by dangerous drugs that were negligently designed, inadequately tested, improperly manufactured, or which failed to warn consumers of their true risks. The over-the-counter medication and prescription drug industries earn billions of dollars in profits every year. When the users of their products are hurt by unexpected adverse reactions or by side effects concealed by the drug manufacturers, those companies set aside hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for lawyers, law firms, physician witnesses, and other litigation experts to avoid taking any responsibility for the harm they cause.
Holding drug manufacturers legally accountable is hard work. The Food and Drug Administration is not the same friend of patients, consumers, and safe medicine that it used to be. FDA approval does not necessarily mean that a drug has been adequately tested or that the drug is safe for consumers — it often only means that company-funded studies have shown the drug works better than nothing. FDA approval is more about marketing to doctors and to the general public than about patient safety.
As much as we welcome the FDA taking an active role in policing drug manufacturers, too often the FDA is forced to rush approval of new medications by laws written by pharmaceutical lobbyists such as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Sometimes, a drug is approved before it has been tested long-term to determine if the drug has any long-term side effects or if the drug still has any benefits after several years.
Decades of lobbying by pharmaceutical companies has made it difficult for patients and consumers to recover any compensation. Filing a lawsuit is by no means a guarantee of a settlement. If you or a loved one are considering contacting a dangerous drug lawyer, take the time to read about the law firms you are considering. Ask questions about what claims the lawyers are investigating and what might happen in the lawsuit.
For a confidential, no-obligation consultation with the dangerous drug lawyers at The Beasley Firm, use the contact form to the right or call my office at (215) 931-2634.
You can also read more about our current medication injury focus areas, such as:
- Actos — Actos has been linked with a higher risk of bladder cancer than comparable diabetes medications, and patients allege that Takeda Pharmaceuticals failed to warn of that increased risk.
- Accutane — Accutane was pulled from the market following research indicating it can cause Inflammatory Bowel Disease, particularly ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, and potentially Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Patients allege Roche Holdings should have recognized these side effects, warned about them, and never put Accutane on the market.
- Depokate — Depakote, an anticonvulsant, was allegedly improperly marketed as a mood stabilizer and treatment for aggression and depression. Depakote was thus taken by many women who were pregnant or could be pregnant, despite research showing the drug can cause birth defects such as spina bifida and cleft palate. Patients allege Abbott Laboratories should have made clear to physicians and patients the limited use of the medication and warned all women who could have become pregnant to never take the medicine.
- Fosamax — Fosamax is prescribed to treat osteoporosis and other bone diseases but research has shown that, after a few years of use, patients have an increased of fractures, particularly in bones that carry more weight like the femur in the leg, and bone decay diseases like osteonecrosis of the jaw. Patients allege that Merck should have performed longer-term studies, particularly studies of more than three years, before moving the drug to the market, and that Merck should recommend patients discontinue use of Fosamax after five years.
- Lexapro — Lexapro is an SSRI antidepressant used to treat depression and mood disorders. Lexapro, however, like many SSRIs, has been found to cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy, including severe defects like omphalocele, cardiac defects, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn, skull deformities, and other conditions of the internal organs like the intestines, heart, and neural tube.
- Pradaxa — Pradaxa is a blood thinner that was intended to replace Coumadin / Warfarin in certain circumstances. When approving Pradaxa, the FDA recognized that it was not truly more effective than Coumadin, but they thought it was marginally safer and easier to use because it could be given in a standard dose. Unfortunately, Pradaxa has complication that makes it far more dangerous than Coumadin: unlike Coumadin, there is no “reversal agent” for Pradaxa. If a person begins excessive bleeding while on Pradaxa, they cannot be given Vitamin K or any other treatment. That problem has caused hundreds of serious injuries and deaths, leading to the filing of dozens of lawsuits.
- Topamax — Like Depakote, Topamax is an anti-seizure medication that was over-prescribed to women who were pregnant or could become pregnant by doctors in part due to illegal “off label” marketing by Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, a division of Johnson & Johnson. Topamax has been linked to a higher rate of birth defects including cleft palate and cleft lip.
You can also read some of my articles about the legal issues that arise in unsafe drug litigation:
- Yaz and Propecia Labels Updated; Are They Subsequent Remedial Measures?
- Pradaxa Bleeding Lawsuits Begin; Still No Reversal Agent Available
- New Jersey Supreme Court Re-affirms Discovery Rule For Statute of Limitations in Pharmaceutical Negligence Lawsuits
- “No Tolerance” for Drug Manufacturers Fabricating FDA Data Doesn’t Mean Much
- The Most Unfair Prescription Drug And Medical Device Opinions Of 2011
- The Unintentional Message Of The “Worst” Drug And Device Court Opinions
- Courts Lag Behind Science In Recognizing How Regular Tylenol Use Causes Liver Damage
- Why Merck Still Doesn’t Warn About Propecia Causing Impotence
- Off Label Drug Use Should Be Regulated For Patient Safety
- Pennsylvania’s Defective Drug Design Laws Hang In The Balance
- Lawyer Branding And The Race For Actos Bladder Cancer Clients
- Recalled Product Lawsuits Getting Harder, Children’s Tylenol Edition
- Failure To Warn Quiz: Do You Know Children’s Motrin Side Effects?
- In Defective Drug Design Lawsuit, Justice Scalia Defies The Tort Reformers
- “we can price these almost anywhere we want given the product profiles.”
- Wyeth v. Levine: The Supreme Court Rejects Judicial Activism for Drug Makers
- “Avoiding Mass Torts: Pre-Litigation Counseling” — Doing Good is Good, Hiding Evidence is Bad
- Tort Litigation Improves Drug Safety by Prompting Pre-emptive Recalls
- FDA Releases Names of Drugs on the Adverse Event Reporting System
- Big Pharma: Private Codes of Conduct as Evidence of Negligence
- Propaganda in the Courtroom: Pharma Edition