Darvon, Darvocet Lawsuits: Wright & Schulte LLC Partners Files Amicus Brief with Supreme Court on behalf of all persons of Propoxyphene, Darvon and Darvocet Injuries

Dayton, OH (PRWEB) 6 March 2013 Richard W. Schulte, a partner with the experienced personal injury law firm of Wright & Schulte LLC, an amicus brief ...

Dayton, OH (PRWEB) 6 March 2013

Richard W. Schulte, a partner with the experienced personal injury law firm of Wright & Schulte LLC, an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of all persons who sold injured by the prescription drug Propoxyphene submitted generic and under the brand names Darvon and Darvocet. The letter, dated 20 February requests the Court a lower court decision in Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., maintain a state law claim for construction defects, may stand against a generic drug manufacturer. Mr. Schulte filed the brief together with his co-lead counsel in the federal litigation and propoxyphene with the Center for Constitutional Litigation. The Supreme Court is scheduled oral argument in Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. 19 March to hear and make a decision before 1 Expected in July. (Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 12-142.)

Darvon, Darvocet and generic versions of Propoxyphene from the U.S. market were withdrawn in November 2010 after studies showed that healthy people taking normal doses of the painkiller had serious heart-related side effects, including heart attack, cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death experienced. Mr. Schulte’s service as Co-Lead Counsel in the federal multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky established for personal injury claims which result from the propoxyphene, Darvon and Darvocet recall. (In re:. Darvocet, Darvon and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation MDL – 2226) After the amicus brief filed on behalf of injured propoxyphene, the High Court’s decision in Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. will directly have argued for these claims, as plaintiff, causes of action for strict liability design defects and / or closely related causes of action under state law.


Hatch-Waxman Act requires that generic drugs have the same label warnings to wear as their brand-name counterparts. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Pliva vs. Mensing because generic manufacturers do not have any control over product labels, they could not be sued warn about their medication risks for failing patients. (Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011)) Last November, the Supreme Court agreed to take up an appeal from Bartlett who suffered awarded $ 21 million to a woman who debilitating injury after taking a generic version sulindac of the drug. According to a report by Bloomberg.com affirmed the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts, the award despite the Pliva decision because the applicant was not pressed to warn the non-compliance claim but had argued that sulindac was too dangerous to have been on the market . Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Circuit decision blows a huge hole in Pliva.



ask the Supreme Court to uphold Bartlett, the plaintiffs allege in their propoxyphene amicus brief that state law design defect claims of failure-to-warn claims are fundamentally different. The lack of an adequate warning is not an element of a strict liability design defects cause of action, plaintiffs argue. Indeed, a defendant may be liable even if an adequate warning has been made available: warnings are not a substitute for the care a reasonably safe product. The plaintiffs are going to argue that claims of design defects are also consistent with and complementary to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) because, among other things, they provide incentives for manufacturers, immediately on emerging security risks with their products and supplement the FDA’s limited resources for monitoring the safety of drugs after they have been approved. Applicants also point out that the test for the imposition of design defect liability the same as that used by the FDA to determine whether a drug to use is uncertain, as both are trying to determine whether damage to a drug outweigh its benefits.

Finally, the amicus brief makes that state law design-defect liability do not conflict with Congresss purpose in enacting Hatch-Waxman, because the law allows generic manufacturers, independently of what state law requires of them. Petitioner was free to voluntarily withdraw its generic sulindac from the market at any time. This option enables applicants the opportunity to the risk of liability for the sale of an unreasonably dangerous drug, the brief notes.


Wright & Schulte GmbH offers free lawsuit evaluations to victims of heart side effects allegedly associated with the use of Darvon, Darvocet and generic versions of propoxyphene. If you or someone you love a heart attack, arrhythmia or sudden death due to any of these drugs suffered, please visit http://www.yourlegalhelp.com, or call toll free 1-800-399-0795 to learn more about your options for litigation.

Wright & Schulte LLC

Wright & Schulte, LLC, an experienced drug law firm, is convinced that America devoted to legal work for the people. Every day are the lawyers of Wright & Schulte LLC for the rights of people who have been injured or wrong, and fight tirelessly to ensure that even the worlds most powerful corporations to take responsibility for their actions. When searching for a law firm that the aggressive and personal representation you deserve youre guarantee, please do not hesitate to contact Wright & Schulte LLC today. Free Darvon and Darvocet lawsuit evaluations are available through yourlegalhelp.com, or call 1-800-399-0795.


Wright & Schulte LLC

812 East National Road

Vandalia, Ohio 45377


clear = “all”

Leave a Reply