6 Ways the Big Drug Companies Try to Fool You into Thinking You Don’t have a Case

Experienced Attorneys Knows their Tricks and How to Counter Them

Large drug companies make billions of dollars each year. Defective prescription drugs that they produce make headlines for a while but the damage to these companies has little effect on their profits. While the FDA may fine the companies and plaintiffs often win massive lawsuits and get huge settlements, the millions of dollars companies pay are small change compared to their profits. People continue to get hurt or even suffer fatal complications from defective pharmaceutical drugs. And the corporations have many strategies for deflecting criticism and discouraging lawsuits.

Below are a few of the tactics they use that an experienced attorney will be prepared to challenge. For more information on these topics, call Attorney Ronald B. Laba at 800-490-2222. With more than 27 years of experience in this area of the law, he is prepared to help you.

Prescription Drug Companies will dissuade you from suing by. . .

Arguing that it’s too late. Your injury or disease was diagnosed many years ago and the statute of limitations has expired.

Your Attorney’s Counterargument

In most states the statute of limitations starts running only after you discovered the drug was dangerous and caused your injury. The drug company would have you believe that the statute of limitations begins when you were initially diagnosed with your injury or disease. This is not the case.

Asserting that you can’t prove you took the drug and records no longer exist.

Your Attorney’s Counterargument

Most pharmacies keep computerized prescription drug records for at least 5-10 years.  Sometimes they keep them even longer. Proof of usage can also be found in your doctor’s records. Health insurance companies typically keep these records for longer periods as well.

Claiming that you were already pre-disposed to the injury or disease

Your Attorney’s Counterargument

The recent Avandia litigation shows why this is not a solid defense for a drug maker. Avandia was a blood sugar drug marketed to diabetics. The manufacturer previously had conducted clinical studies showing Avandia caused heart attacks and significantly increased the risk of coronary heart disease.  This was troubling on its own but even more so since diabetics already were at higher risk of heart disease than the normal patient population to begin with. The drug was marketed to diabetics anyway. Predictably, when things started going wrong, the manufacturer argued there was no harm done because most Avandia takers already were at risk and probably would have suffered a heart attack at some point anyway as a result of the normal diabetes disease process. This approach did not pay off for the manufacturer. Why? Since diabetics already had a heightened risk of heart attack it was successfully argued that these were literally the last people the product should have ever been marketed to. Most diabetics never would have taken Avandia in the first place had they been told the risks up front. Considering there were many other blood sugar medications available to diabetics that were just as effective but did not increase heart attack risks—this was especially true.

You were Warned of the Prescription Drug Risks

Your Attorney’s Counterargument

Most prescription drugs come with some sort of warning label. The issue is not whether the product had a warning label. This issue is whether it was adequate. The warning must realistically and accurately set forth the product’s genuine risks in a meaningful way in order to be considered adequate. Warning labels are almost always found to be inadequate in successful drug litigations.

The drug would not have been allowed on the market if it was dangerous.

Your Attorney’s Counterargument

The FDA approval process is inherently flawed because a drug’s risks are assessed only at the time the drug is initially approved for sale and the threshold for approval is quite low. A false sense of security is created with FDA approval: most problems with prescription drugs come to light only after already being on the market for many years and being ingested by millions of people. In many ways, the drug manufacturers are supposed to police themselves. This can lead to tragedy.

A drug recall would have been immediate if the drug was dangerous.

Your Attorney’s Counterargument

Dangerous drugs can stay on the market for many years without being recalled. Often the studies that are given to the FDA are biased in favor of the manufacturers who often fund the studies. Other times the research is delayed or, in some cases, suppressed. Drug recalls usually happen only in the most extreme circumstances and after numerous people may have suffered or died.  A drug is not necessarily safe just because it has not yet been withdrawn from the market. The same can be said for many defective medical devices.

If you have been harmed or someone you love has been harmed by what you suspect is a faulty drug, you may be wondering: what do I do next? Contact us online or call Ronald B. Laba at 800-490-2222. To get justice and compensation, you will need a formidable ally. If you choose to continue researching attorneys, you may want to view How to Choose a Law Firm for insight on how to make such an important decision for you and your family.