WEEKLY MDL UPDATE by MASS TORT NEXUS for Week of November 13, 2017

The week in mass torts around the country:

By Mark York, Mass Tort Nexus (November 16, 2017)

favicon
MASS TORT NEXUS

 Verdicts on November 16, 2017: 

J&J gets hit hard again, in a $247 million Pinnacle hip implant verdict, DePuy Orthopaedics Pinnacle Implant MDL 2244, in bellwether trial of 3:15-cv-03489 Alicea et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al. (DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant MDL 2244 Briefcase)

Drug maker Auxilium won a defense verdict in their Testim product bellwether trial, where plaintiffs claimed it caused a heart attack in a verdict reached in the US District Court Northern District of Illinois, Judge Kennelly, in MDL 2545 Testosterone Replacement Therapy. (Testosterone Therapy MDL 2545 USDC ND Illinois)

Johnson & Johnson Wins a Defense Verdict in Los Angeles Court Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Trial, Jury Finds J&J Not Liable in Tina Herford et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Case number BC646315, consolidated in LAOSD Asbestos Cases, case number JCCP4674, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  (J&J Talcum Powder Cancer Litigation Briefcase)

Senator Bob Menendez  judge declares a mistrial in New Jersey federal court trial, after a hung jury cannot agree unanimously on charges. Question is- Are the Senator and his doctor friend in Florida, just that-were they just friends or was there active bribery taking place?

Recent Case Updates:

>Plaintiff in DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant Trial Asks Texas Jury For A Hundred Million + In Punitive Damages

At the close of arguments in the latest DePuy MDL 2244 trial on Monday November 13, 2017, six New York plaintiffs asked a Texas federal jury to hit Johnson & Johnson and it’s DePuy subsidiary, with at least a nine-figure punitive damages award. Attorneys asked that J&J and DePuy be punished for making and marketing their Pinnacle model hip implants, an alleged defective line of metal-on-metal hip implants, that have caused many thousands of injuries to unsuspecting patients. If this jury follows suit on prior Pinnacle bellwether jury awards, then J&J and DePuy should be ready for a massive verdict, as the last jury awarded California plaintiffs over one billion dollars in December 2016, sending a clear message that the company’s Pinnacle design and subsequent marketing policies have failed.

METALLSOIS DAMAGE

Closing arguments wrapped up on the two-month bellwether trial, where plaintiffs claimed they suffered “metallosis” which caused tissue damage and negative reactions to the Pinnacle Ultamet line of metal-on-metal hip implants made by J&J’s DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. unit. Depending on the jury verdict, perhaps J&J will consider coming to the settlement table if another massive verdict is awarded, or they may continue the aggressive “we’ve done no wrong stance” resulting in more plaintiff verdicts in the future..

 >Travelers Insurance Wins Declaratory Judgment Suit Over Defense Coverage In Orange County and Chicago Opioid Lawsuits:

“California Appeals court says Watson not covered”

Watson Pharma, Inc. and it’s parent Activis, Inc. were denied insurance coverage in a November 6, 2017 ruling by the California State Court of Appeals in the 2014 Declaratory Judgment action filed by Travelers Insurance in an Orange County, CA court where Travelers successfully asserted claims that they were not required to defend or indemnify Watson in the underlying opioid based litigation filed by Santa Clara and Orange County against opioid manufacturers, due to Watson’s “intentional bad conduct” in their business practices related to sales and marketing of it’s opioid products. The Appeals Court also excluded Watson’s coverage in a similar opioid lawsuit against them in a Chicago, Illinois federal case where the City of Chicago filed similar claims against Watson over opioid marketing abuses in 2014. Perhaps other insurance carrier will take notice and look closer at denying policy coverage for many other opioid manufacturers who have been sued across the country in cases with almost the exact claims as those alleged by Santa Clara County and the City of Chicago.

>NEW XARELTO TRIAL:

Former FDA Commissioner Testifies in Philadelphia Xarelto Trial-

“Xarelto Warnings Are Inadequate”

— Former head of the Food and Drug Administration, Commissioner David Kessler testified during the first state court trial in Philadelphia, telling the jury on Tuesday that “warning labels for the blood thinner Xarelto failed to provide adequate information to doctors and consumers about the risk of bleeding that some patients could face when using the drug”.

David Kessler, FDA Commissioner under President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, told jurors that Bayer AG and Johnson & Johnson’s warning labels for the medication understated the risk of significant bleeding events that had been seen in television and print ads across the country for years, and failed to disclose the true risks associated with prescribing the blockbuster drug. This trial, expected to take six weeks, is the first state court bellwether trial for the blood thinner Xarelto, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the prior trials took place in federal courts in Louisiana and Mississippi where the defense prevailed in all 3 trials earlier this year. Those trials were all bellwether trials, as part of the Xarelto MDL 2592 in front of Judge Eldon Fallon, US District Court, ED Louisiana. Will the change of venue to Pennsylvania State Court have a different outcome than the three prior Xeralto trial losses?

>Luzerene County, Pennsylvania Files RICO Suit Over Opioid Marketing Against Drug Makers

Luzerne County in Northeast Pennsylvania has filed a federal RICO based lawsuit accusing pharmaceutical companies including Purdue, Pharma, Endo, Janssen and Teva of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by illegally marketing highly addictive painkillers that have contributed to a costly national opioid epidemic. The suit filed in US district Court of Pennsylvania by Luzerne County is one of many cases opioid drugmakers and distributors are facing as state and local governments seek to recoup costs they’ve incurred in the increased marketing and prescribing of opioid painkillers, and the resultant spikes in addiction and overdose.

OPIOID MARKETING ABUSES

“The manufacturers aggressively pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to doctors that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction,” the complaint, which was filed on Wednesday, said. “These pharmaceutical companies … turned patients into drug addicts for their own corporate profit.”
“The lawsuit accused the drugmakers of using false and deceptive marketing practices over the course of the last two decades, including pushing the opioid painkillers for treatment of chronic pain, to boost prescriptions for the drugs

COMMON CLAIMS AGAINST ALL OPIOiD MAKERS

Among the companies’ primary claims, cited by Luzerne county and others, evidence the manufacturers intentionally misled consumers, was that the drugs were not addictive when prescribed to treat legitimate pain. This is one of the key claims used by all parties filing suit against the opioid manufacturers, across the entire country.

Case heading is: Luzerne County v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., case number 3:17-cv-2043, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

>Opioid Litigation Roundup: An Overview Of Recently Filed Cases and MDL 2804

In addition to the many counties and other communities from across the country that have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers in MDL 2802, set for a JPML consolidation hearing November 30, 2017 a new group of plaintiffs have joined the increasing pool of parties filing suit against Big Pharma opioid manufacturers and their distributors. Unions are now joining in the suits alleging that the business practices of the opioid makers and distributors caused catastrophic healthcare and related labor problems everywhere in the country over the last 15 years. Locals from the Electrical Workers; Commercial Food Service and Teamsters are now plaintiffs in the MDL 2804, which if approved at the upcoming JPML hearings in St Louis, will probably cause a flood of additional filings by unions across the country.

State attorneys general, a Native American tribe and individual consumers are among the ever increasing pool of plaintiffs who’ve brought lawsuits against drugmakers, pharmacies and distributors allegedly responsible for epidemic levels of opioid abuse. As word spreads among the network of local governments, and discussion take place about the municipal opioid lawsuits being filed, there will be a flood of new complaints filed, that will match or exceed the number of cases filed in the massive “Tobacco Litigation” which is quickly gaining comparison as the opioid case filings are looking to be comparable in size and probably exceed the tobacco litigation in damages.

Read More

Jury Finds AbbVie Misrepresented Risks of AndroGel and Awards $140 Million in Second Low-T Bellwether Trial

“AbbVie, Inc. Misrepresented Risks of AndroGel and Jury Awards $140 Million in 2nd AndroGel Low-T Trial”

By Mark A. York (October 17, 2017

Mass Tort Nexus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AbbVie loses again, a jury in Chicago ordered AbbVie, Inc. to pay more than $140 million on October 5, 2017 to a man who claimed the company misrepresented the risks of its testosterone replacement drug AndroGel prescribed for Low-T, causing him to suffer a heart attack. This is the second major loss for AbbVie in the AndroGel related MDL 2545, (Testosterone Replacement Therapy MDL 2545 Briefcase) in front of Judge Matthew Kennelly, US District Court ND Illinois, this verdict follows the July 24, 2017 verdict of $150 million in the first trial.

The verdict, handed down in federal court in Chicago, came in a lawsuit filed by Tennessee resident Jeffrey Konrad and his wife, the suit was filed in 2015. It is the second verdict against AbbVie to come out of more than 6,000 additional lawsuits against AbbVie and other companies consolidated in the Chicago court in front of Judge Kennelly. Kennelly is a long-term judge, who’s not prone to judicial errors or permitting either side in cases to stray outside the fairly conservative courtroom standards Kennelly is known for, which also relates directly to any AbbVie appeals and post-trial maneuvering.

Chicago-based AbbVie said in a statement “We are disappointed with today’s verdict and we intend to appeal,” With thousands more cases pending, AbbVie may need to look at changing legal strategy or to begin thinking settlement. The juries have stated that the company misled consumers via fraudulent misrepresentation in the “off-label” marketing campaign, which included urging men to their testosterone levels checked.

This verdict was comprised of $140 million in punitive damages, intended to deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar behavior, and $140,000 in compensatory damages, sending a message to not only AbbVie, but other Big Pharma drug makers, that consumers are now becoming aware of manipulation of prescription drug use behind the scenes via marketing campaigns including massive television advertisements.

SECOND BELLWETHER LOSS FOR ABBVIE

Konrad’s case is part of a series of bellwether trials aimed at helping plaintiffs and manufacturers of AndroGel gauge the range of damages and define a legal strategy and settlement options., losing both of the initial bellwether trials doesn’t look good for the defense, see “ANDROGEL” JURY RETURNS $150 MILLION VERDICT IN 1st TESTOSTERONE TRIAL.  That jury’s decision to award punitive damages without granting compensatory damages was unusual and both sides continue to fight over the verdict’s validity in court, but shows that the plaintiffs seem to have viable claims at trial.

Plaintiffs across the country allege AndroGel has caused heart attacks, strokes and other injuries, and the company was aware of the increase in adverse events while marketing “off-label” use. AbbVie has defended the drug and responded that its marketing of AndroGel adhered strictly to uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration and they have remained in full compliance with all FDA standards.

Konrad, 56, had been using AndroGel for two months in 2010 when he suffered a heart attack, from which he has since recovered. In court pleadings, the company contended that Konrad’s heart attack was caused by other factors, which are are not related to being prescribed AndroGel, such as obesity and high blood pressure. It also said it made no misrepresentations about AndroGel’s safety, which now two juries have disagreed with to the tune of $290 million.

ANDROGEL WAS A BLOCKBUSTER FROM FIRST RELEASE

AbbVie’s AndroGel is one of the more dominant testosterone treatments In the ever growing Low-T market, with sales of $675 million in 2016, and was declared a blockbuster drug and moved earnings and shares higher as soon as AndroGel hit the market. However, there were concerns about the drug safety as far back as 2012 and the FDA took notice not long thereafter. In 2014, the FDA convened an advisory committee to consider the adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with testosterone replacement therapy, and the committee recommended changing the product warning labels, the FDA then required AbbVie to add a warning about cardiovascular risk to AndroGel’s label in May 2015.

Read More

Court Selects 2 Testosterone Cases Against Lilly for Bellwether Trials

testosterone2The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois selected two cases as Lilly Bellwether Trial cases in In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Product Liability Litigation, MDL 2545.

There are 6,090 lawsuits over testosterone replacement treatments against Eli Lilly and other drug companies before US District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly in the multidistrict litigation docket. Lilly makes Axiron testosterone topical solution.

The cases set for trial are:

  • Plaintiff Tracy Garner who suffered a myocardial infarction, Case No 1:15-cv-02045
  • Plaintiff John Debroka, Jr., who suffered a deep vein thrombosis, Case No. 1:15-cv-09246

All the actions involve plaintiffs (or their survivors) who used one or more testosterone replacement therapies and contend that their (or their decedent’s) use of the drugs caused their injuries, which include:

  • heart attack
  • stroke
  • deep vein thrombosis
  • pulmonary embolism

On January 31, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it was “investigating the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death in men taking FDA-approved testosterone products.” Plaintiffs filed the actions in the wake of this announcement.

In March 2015, the FDA issued a safety communication, cautioning men against taking testosterone products for low testosterone levels associated with aging. The agency also required companies manufacturing these drugs to change their labels to clarify the proper usages for their products. Manufacturers were also required to add warnings about the risks of heart attack and stroke associated with taking these drugs.

All testosterone replacement therapy actions share factual questions about general causation and the background science about the role of testosterone in the aging body, as well as involve common regulatory issues in light of the FDA’s announcement and subsequent actions, if any.

The hormone has been used off-label to treat a range of symptoms such as loss of energy, decreased muscle mass and reduced libido.

The defendants include:

  • AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories Inc. (collectively Abbot)
  • Eli Lilly and Co. and Lilly USA LLC
  • Endo Pharmaceuticals
  • Actavis, Inc.
  • Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Pfizer, Inc.
  • Pharmacia

Read More

Pharma and Med Device Companies Pay Doctors $2 Billion for “Consulting”

bribe doctor kickbackEven though it is illegal to pay kickbacks to doctors, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are paying $2 billion in general payments to 618,000 physicians each year, in addition to another $600 million a year to teaching hospitals, according to a ProPublica database.

General payments cover promotional speaking, consulting, meals, travel, gifts and royalties, but not research, as shown in its Dollars for Docs database.

The 10 drugs for which companies spent the most in payments to physicians in 2015 — many of which are targets of mass tort litigation —  were:

  1. Blood thinner Xarelto ($28.4 million).  In Re: Xarelto Products Liability Litigation in Philadelphia, hundreds of plaintiffs charge that the blood-thinning drug caused gastrointestinal bleeding, hemorrhagic strokes or death.
  2. Rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira ($24.9 million)
  3. Diabetes drug Invokana ($20.9 million). The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) has created new MDL 2750 for Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation in New Jersey.
  4. Hepatitis C drug Viekira ($19.2 million)
  5. Blood thinner Eliquis ($18.8 million). Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc. have filed a motion to create new MDL No. 2757 in New York to hear Eliquis (Apixaban) products liability litigation.
  6. Diabetes drug Bydureon ($18.5 million)
  7. Testosterone drug Androgel ($15.3 million). US District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly has set June 5, 2017, for the start of first of six AbbVie bellwether trials in MDL 2545, in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.
  8. Thyroid drug Synthroid ($14.7 million)
  9. Synthetic hormone Lupron ($14.3 million)
  10. Diabetes drug Victoza ($11.9 million).

“We’ve shown that physicians who receive payments from the industry tend to prescribe more brand-name drugs than those who don’t. Several academic studies later had similar findings. We also recently reported that companies continue to work with thousands of doctors who have received disciplinary sanctions against their licenses,” ProPublica states.

The disclosures included in Dollars for Docs were required under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

For example, Janssen has paid $106 million to 141,294 doctors in connection with Xarelto, Invokana, Risperdal and many other drugs. From August 2013 to December 2015, Janssen paid:

Richard Aguilar
Internal Medicine
Huntington, CA
$345K
Gregory Mitchell
Specialist
Annapolis, MD
$290K
Bruce Bode
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism
Atlanta, GA
$286K

 

Read More

FDA Adds Addiction Warning to Testosterone

testosterone2The FDA approved class-wide labeling changes for all prescription testosterone products, adding a new Warning and updating the Abuse and Dependence section to include new safety information from published literature and case reports about the risks of abuse and dependence of testosterone and other anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS).

The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 placed AAS, including testosterone, in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. Testosterone and other AAS are abused by adults and adolescents, including athletes and body builders.

Nearly 6,300 actions are consolidated before US District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly in MDL 2545, in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. All the actions involve plaintiffs (or their survivors) who used one or more testosterone replacement therapies and contend that their (or their decedent’s) use of the drugs caused their injuries, which include:
  • heart attack
  • stroke
  • deep vein thrombosis
  • pulmonary embolism

All of these cases involve Androgel, a testosterone drug manufactured by AbbVie. Judge Kennelly has set June 5, 2017, for the start of first of six AbbVie bellwether trials

Danger of high doses

On January 31, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it was “investigating the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death in men taking FDA-approved testosterone products.” Plaintiffs filed the actions in the wake of this announcement.

In March 2015, the FDA issued a safety communication, cautioning men against taking testosterone products for low testosterone levels associated with aging. The agency also required companies manufacturing these drugs to change their labels to clarify the appropriate usages for their products. Manufacturers were also required to add warnings about the risks of heart attack and stroke associated with taking these drugs.

Abuse of testosterone, usually at doses higher than those typically prescribed and usually in conjunction with other AAS, is associated with serious safety risks affecting the heart, brain, liver, mental health, and endocrine system.  Reported serious adverse outcomes include heart attack, heart failure, stroke, depression, hostility, aggression, liver toxicity, and male infertility. Individuals abusing high doses of testosterone have also reported withdrawal symptoms, such as depression, fatigue, irritability, loss of appetite, decreased libido, and insomnia.

The manufacturers of two prescription topical testosterone gel products, AndroGel 1% and Testim 1%, were required to include a boxed warning on the products’ labels.

The new warning will alert prescribers to the abuse potential of testosterone and the serious adverse outcomes, especially those related to heart and mental health that have been reported in association with testosterone/AAS abuse.  In addition, all testosterone labeling has been revised to include information about adverse outcomes from abuse and dependence of testosterone/AAS. The Warning and Precautions section advises prescribers of the importance of measuring serum testosterone concentration if abuse is suspected.

Testosterone products are FDA-approved only for use in men who lack or have low testosterone levels in conjunction with an associated medical condition. Prescription testosterone products are FDA-approved as hormone replacement therapy for men who have low testosterone due to certain medical conditions. Examples of these conditions include failure of the testicles to produce testosterone because of genetic problems, or damage to the testicles from chemotherapy or infection.

Read More

Judge Sets 6 Bellwether Trials in Testosterone Mass Torts Litigation

testosterone2US District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly has set June 5, 2017, for the start of first of six AbbVie bellwether trials in MDL 2545, in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

Discovery deadlines start in September for more than 5,500 cases currently pending. All the actions involve plaintiffs (or their survivors) who used one or more testosterone replacement therapies and contend that their (or their decedent’s) use of the drugs caused their injuries, which include:

  • heart attack
  • stroke
  • deep vein thrombosis
  • pulmonary embolism

On January 31, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it was “investigating the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death in men taking FDA-approved testosterone products.” Plaintiffs filed the actions in the wake of this announcement.

In March 2015, the FDA issued a safety communication, cautioning men against taking testosterone products for low testosterone levels associated with aging. The agency also required companies manufacturing these drugs to change their labels to clarify the appropriate usages for their products. Manufacturers were also required to add warnings about the risks of heart attack and stroke associated with taking these drugs.

All testosterone replacement therapy actions share factual questions about general causation and the background science regarding the role of testosterone in the aging body, as well as involve common regulatory issues in light of the FDA’s announcement and subsequent actions, if any.

The hormone has been used off-label to treat a range of symptoms such as loss of energy, decreased muscle mass and reduced libido.

The defendants include:

  • AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories Inc. (collectively Abbot)
  • Eli Lilly and Co. and Lilly USA LLC
  • Endo Pharmaceuticals
  • Actavis, Inc.
  • Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Pfizer, Inc.
  • Pharmacia

All of these cases involve Androgel, a testosterone drug manufactured by AbbVie.

The first case, which is slated to begin July 2017, was filed by Jeffrey Konrad. Konrad claims he suffered a myocardial infarction after taking Androgel. The order of the remaining cases will be determined at a later date. Once these trials are completed, Judge Kennelly is expected to select a second group of bellwether trials that will include Axiron, Testim, Androderm and other testosterone products.

Read More

MDL 2545 Created in Illinois for Testosterone Products Liability Litigation

AndrogelThe US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 45 actions pending in four districts (listed below in Schedule A) to the Northern District of Illinois on June 6, 2015, and assigned them to Judge Matthew F. Kennelly for consolidated pretrial proceedings. The panel renamed the MDL caption to In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation.

The defendants include:

  • AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories Inc. (collectively Abbot)
  • Eli Lilly and Co. and Lilly USA LLC
  • Endo Pharmaceuticals
  • Actavis, Inc.
  • Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Pfizer, Inc.
  • Pharmacia

FDA investigation

On January 31, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it was “investigating the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death in men taking FDA-approved testosterone products.” Plaintiffs filed the actions in the wake of this announcement.

All the actions involve plaintiffs (or their survivors) who used one or more testosterone replacement therapies and contend that their (or their decedent’s) use of the drugs caused their injuries, which include heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. All testosterone replacement therapy actions share factual questions about general causation and the background science regarding the role of testosterone in the aging body (possibly including examination of the recent studies that prompted the FDA investigation), as well as involve common regulatory issues in light of the FDA’s announcement and subsequent actions, if any.

Henning v. AbbVie, Inc., Case: 1:14-cv-03384, is a representative example of a complaint. This case involves the prescription drug AndroGel, which is manufactured, sold, distributed and promoted by the Defendants AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories Inc. as a testosterone replacement therapy.

Defendants misrepresented that AndroGel is a safe and effective treatment for hypogonadism and a condition they referred to as “low testosterone,” when in fact the drug causes serious medical problems, including life threatening cardiac events, strokes, and thrombolytic events.

AndroGel causes the hematocrit level to increase, thereby thickening the blood. This effect, if not monitored and controlled properly, can lead to life threatening cardiac events, strokes and thrombolytic events. Defendants failed to adequately warn physicians about the risks associated with the AndroGel and the monitoring required to ensure their patients’ safety.

Defendants engaged in aggressive, award-winning direct-to-consumer and physician marketing and advertising campaigns for AndroGel. Further, Defendants engaged in an aggressive unbranded ―disease awareness‖ campaign to alert men that they might be suffering from ―low T or ―low testosterone.

Plaintiff Thomas Henning of Lansdale, Pennsylvania used AndroGel, according to his prescription, from May 2011 to February 2014. 60. On May 10, 2012, he suffered a STEMI – i.e., an ST segment elevation myocardial infarction – which is a heart attack that results when a coronary artery becomes completely blocked by a blood clot. Prior to using AndroGel, Plaintiff had no history of myocardial infarction or other heart attack.

SCHEDULE A

District of Colorado

SCHENKEIN v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00910                                       14cv4254

Northern District of Illinois

AURECCHIA V. ABBVIE INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00772 MARINO v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00777 MYERS v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00780 CRIPE v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00843 JOHNSON v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00877 KELLY, SR. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00879

GIBBY, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00917 HARDEE, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00918 LAU v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01298 BARTHOLIC v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01427 O’DONNELL v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01428 BLADES, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01471

CARPENTER, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01472 HUMPHRIES, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01473 DOBBS v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01474

HEADLEY v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01475 HUGHES, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01476 JACKSON, ET AL. v. ABBVIE INC., C.A. No. 1:14-01477 GORDON v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01478 JONES, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01479 KING, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01480 LEWIS, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01481 SAYLOR, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01482 CATAUDELLA v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01483 BAILEY v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01663 GORDON v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01665 WHITE v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01667 MONTGOMERY v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01668 ORTIZ v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01670

DELEON v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01673 DULA v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01726 LAROCHE v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01826

Northern District of Illinois (continued)

GEORGE v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02085 LUECK v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02140 EMMONS v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02221 DARBY, ET AL. v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02227 KOMRADA V. ABBVIE INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02429

Eastern District of Louisiana

PEULER, ET AL. V. AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-0065814cv4255

LOCOCO, ET AL V. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00774 BARRIOS, ET AL. V. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00839

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

TEJEDA v. ABBVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00946 HUSTED V. ABBVIE INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-02111

ALBRIGHT, ET AL. V. ABBVIE INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-02112 HARRIS, ET AL. V. ABBVIE INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-02113

 

Read More