What Must Attorneys Prove in a Pradaxa Injury Lawsuit?

While each Pradaxa injury lawsuit has its own unique factors, such as the degree of injury the plaintiff suffered, all cases require that attorneys prove the product is defective.

Product liability cases, such as those involving dangerous drugs, are often complex. They require technical experts to testify. Numerous case laws and various statutes may apply, and product liability statutes also vary from state to state. While there is no federal products liability law, the U.S. Department of Commerce created a Model Uniform Products Liability Act (MUPLA), which states can use voluntarily. The crux of any products liability case, such as the mass torts brought against Pradaxa manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim, is proving the defects of a product. Typically, injuries caused by Pradaxa are subject to strict liability law, which does not require plaintiffs to prove anything other than the product’s defects. Manufacturers are strictly liable for producing safe products and, when defects lead to harm, the party is liable.

Plaintiffs in the Pradaxa lawsuits seek to prove that severe bleeding and other injuries resulted from taking Pradaxa, and that the defendants failed to adequately warn prescribing physicians about Pradaxa risks and the degree or possibility of severe or fatal bleeding. In addition, they intend to prove that no reversal agent exists to counteract Pradaxa’s blood thinning properties.

Lawyers must also provide evidence that shows their clients sustained Pradaxa injuries and medical testimony that justifies the amounts of compensation being sought.

When obtaining fair compensation for our clients, Phillips Law Offices brings more than 65 years of litigation experience and skills along with extensive knowledge about Pradaxa to every case we handle.