RESEARCHER FOR GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONVICTED OF RESEARCH FRAUD | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog

RESEARCHER FOR GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONVICTED OF RESEARCH FRAUD

By Rachel E. Montes posted in Avandia on Monday, November 29, 2010

glaxo Smith Kline building.JPG

NaturalNews.com is reporting that Maria Carmen Palazzo, a psychiatrist on the payroll of drug maker GlaxoSmithKline, has been convicted and sentenced to 13 months in prison after pleading guilty to committing research fraud in trials of the antidepressant Paxil on children. Some studies are suggesting a link between Paxil and an increased risk of suicide in children. In addition, GlaxoSmithKline is also being accused of failing to warn parents that Paxil may cause birth defects if taken by pregnant women. The company has already agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle roughly 700 birth defect lawsuits; another 100 or so suits are pending.

Maria Carmen Palazzo has already been convicted and sentenced to 87 months in prison for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. Although this is a different charge, the 13 month prison term will not result in any additional prison time as her sentence will be served concurrently (at the same time) as her conviction for Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

Palazzo was accused by the FDA of enrolling children in a clinical trial for Paxil even though she knew the children did not actually suffer from major depressive or obsessive compulsive disorders. Palazzo allegedly falsified records and psychiatric diagnoses that GlaxoSmithKline used to obtain approval for Paxil. Palazzo was being paid $5,000 by GlaxoSmithKline for every child she enrolled in the Paxil study.

The question now is how much did GlaxoSmithKline know about Palazzo’s acitivities. GlaxoSmithKline is now trying to defend itself against charges that for 15 years it deliberately concealed evidence that Paxil increases the risk of suicide in children. In addition, the drug maker is also facing accusations that it manipulated research data on other medications, including Avandia, to conceal the increased risks of heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular problems associated with Avandia. Avandia is a medication marketed sold by GlaxoSmithKline to treat Type II diabetes. The company has set aside $2.3 billion to settle Avandia claims and lawsuits.

The concern with Avandia is that it may increase a users’ risk of heart attack by 43 percent and cardiac-related death by 64 percent, according to the 2007 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, there are other concerns about the side effects of Avandia and two other drugs manufactured by GSK, Avandamet and Avandaryl including an increased risks of fractures of the upper arm, hand, and foot of women taking it. In response, the FDA has severely restricted the use of Avandia drugs to the point that the prescribing of Avandia is almost banned.

Other reported side effects from taking Avandia include:

  • Death
  • Heart Attacks
  • Congestive Heart Failure
  • PPH – Primary Pulmonary Hypertension
  • Bone Fractures
  • Blindness
  • Liver Failure Hepatitis

 

 

Patients who have taken Avandia and who have been harmed by the drug have legal rights. It is important that if you have taken Avandia, Avandemet or Avandaryl that you contact a lawyer immediately to learn more about your rights. You may have a claim for strict liability for a defective product, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation and you may be entitled to compensation for your damages. Damages in these pharmaceutical cases against these drug companies for manufacturing and marketing dangerous drugs include damages for:

  • Physical pain and suffering, and mental anguish;
  • Physical impairment;
  • Medical expenses associated with efforts to remedy the injuries as a result of the original surgery;
  • Loss of earnings and/or earning capacity; and
  • In the case of a patient’s death, the family of the victim may file a wrongful death action and seek damages.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

Toll Free (877) 529-8899

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

LEGAL RIGHTS OF PATIENTS INJURED BY AVANDIA

THE HISTORY OF AVANDIA | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog

THE HISTORY OF AVANDIA

By Rachel E. Montes posted in Avandia on Monday, November 29, 2010

Avandia pill bottle.bmp

Avandia is a drug approved in May of 1999 to control blood sugar levels for people with Type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a serious and life-threatening disease, which is estimated to affect approximately 18-20 million Americans. Because there are so many people with Type 2 diabetes, developing a drug that controls blood sugars levels can be a very profitable business.

 

However, the Avandia drugs developed by GlaxoSmithKline have been shown in studies to increase the chance of heart attack by as much as 43%. Studies have also demonstrated that risk of death from cardiovascular disease was 64% greater in persons taking Avandia. The most recent study by the FDA linking Avandia to increased risk of heart attack was released in late February 2010.

Avandia has been suspected for years of being a potentially dangerous drug. In 2002, the warning label for Avandia was strengthened. Then, in 2006, GlaxoSmithKline provided the FDA with a meta-analysis of 42 controlled Avandia clinical drug trials suggesting short-term Avandia use may be linked to a 30%-40% greater risk of heart attack and other adverse cardiovascular events compared with other diabetes treatments or no anti-diabetic therapy at all.

In 2007, cardiologist Dr. Steven Nissen published his meta-analyis of the 42 Avandia trials in the New England Journal of Medicine which concluded that Avandia use is associated with a 43% increase in heart attack risk and a 64% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular causes. In follow up to this study, the FDA issues a safety alert on Avandia.

In June of 2007, GlaxoSmithKline published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine purporting to show that Avandia does not cause heart problems.

However, in July of 2007: A joint FDA drug safety advisory committee while voting against an Avandia, the joint committee voted 22-1 to recommend that information warning of potential for increased risk of heart attacks be added to the drug’s labeling. In November of 2007, The FDA required that GlaxoSmithKline add a “black box” warning for heart attack risks to Avandia label and package insert.

February 2010: A Senate Finance Committee published a report linking Avandia to increased risks of heart attacks and other cardiovascular events. The report is critical of GlaxoSmithKline’s conduct in the sale and marketing of the diabetes drug concluding that Avandia manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline knew of the risks associated with Avandia for years, but worked to conceal risks of the drug from diabetes patients and from the FDA.

In May of 2010, two more studies were published finding an association between the use of Avandia and an increased risks of heart attack and other cardiovascular problems. In July of 2010, the FDA joint drug safety advisory committee met and considered the risks and benefits of Avandia. The committee voted against recommending an Avandia, but instead chose to advise the FDA to add additional safety warnings to the Avandia label and to impose new restrictions on its use. On September 23, 2010: The FDA announced new restrictions on the prescription of Avandia to patients with Type 2 diabetes who cannot control their diabetes on other medications.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

Toll Free (877) 529-8899

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

CANADA RESTRICTS THE USE OF AVANDIA DUE TO CONCERNS OVER AN INCREASED RISK OF HEART RELATED ILLNESSES | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog

CANADA RESTRICTS THE USE OF AVANDIA DUE TO CONCERNS OVER AN INCREASED RISK OF HEART RELATED ILLNESSES

By Rachel E. Montes posted in Avandia on Friday, November 19, 2010

Health-Canada-logo.jpg

Avandia pill bottle.bmp

Health Canada has announced new restrictions and a consent form for the diabetes medication rosiglitazone, sold under the brand name Avandia, because of an increased risk of heart-related illness. The national drug regulator said Thursday that it changed the restrictions after reviewing recent data and in conjunction with manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline Inc.

The drug may increase the risk of serious heart problems, including heart failure, angina (chest pain), heart attack or fluid retention (with or without rapid weight gain). It should not be used by patients who have or have had heart problems, the agency said in a release Thursday. Taking an approach similar to that implemented by the FDA in America, Health Canada says the medication should be used only in patients with Type 2 diabetes when all other diabetes medicines taken orally have not lowered blood sugar enough, or are not appropriate.

The agency said that patients should not stop taking the medication until they have seen their physician to discuss their diabetes treatment, including other options and the benefits and risks of taking rosiglitazone.

Before starting or renewing a prescription for Avandia, doctors must now advise patients to read the consumer information for the drug and to read and sign a consent form indicating they understand the heart-related risks of the medication and they have discussed other treatment options.

The restrictions affect Avandia (rosiglitazone), Avandamet (contains both rosiglitazone and metformin) and Avandaryl (contains both rosiglitazone and glimepiride).

 

The law in most states provides several personal injury claims for persons who have been seriously injured by a prescription drug with excessive and dangerous side effects. Settlements of these claims are expected to include strict liability for a defective product, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation. Damages sought against pharmaceutical companies for dangerous drug side effects and injuries include at least the following types of damages:

  • Physical pain and suffering, mental anguish;
  • Physical impairment;
  • Medical expenses associated with efforts to remedy the injuries as a result of the original surgery;
  • Loss of earnings and/or earning capacity; and
  • In the case of a patient’s death, the family of the victim may file a wrongful death action and seek damages.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

Toll Free (877) 529-8899

www.MontesHerald.com

 

LEGAL RIGHTS OF PATIENTS INJURED BY AVANDIA

MAYO CLINIC STUDY SHOWS MANY DOCTORS NOT AWARE ABOUT FDA WARNINGS ON AVANDIA | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog

MAYO CLINIC STUDY SHOWS MANY DOCTORS NOT AWARE ABOUT FDA WARNINGS ON AVANDIA

By Rachel E. Montes posted in Avandia on Thursday, November 18, 2010

Avandia pill bottle.bmpnejm logo.bmp

The New England Journal of Medicine has published a Mayo Clinic study that tried to determine if doctors were aware of FDA warnings regarding potentially dangerous drugs. The study used Avandia, a controversial diabetes drug. Avandia is considered to be a good drug to look at for this study because in 2007, following a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA required that Avandia come with a “black-box warning” — the strongest warning possible — alerting consumers that the drug was associated with an increased risk of heart attack. Then, in September of 2010, the scrutiny over Avandia intensified further when it was banned in Europe and all but banned by the FDA in America.

The concern with Avandia is that it may increase a users’ risk of heart attack by 43 percent and cardiac-related death by 64 percent, according to the 2007 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In addition, there are other concerns about the side effects of Avandia and two other drugs manufactured by GSK, Avandamet and Avandaryl including an increased risks of fractures of the upper arm, hand, and foot of women taking it.

Other reported side effects from taking Avandia include:

  • Death
  • Heart Attacks
  • Congestive Heart Failure
  • PPH – Primary Pulmonary Hypertension
  • Bone Fractures
  • Blindness
  • Liver Failure
  • Hepatitis

mayo-clinic-logo.jpg

The Mayo Clinic study specifically looked at the impact black-box warnings for drugs have at a national level, and, more specifically, at a geographical level, and how these warnings are incorporated into practice. The Mayo Clinic study found that doctors’ prescribing patterns vary across the country in response to warnings about medications from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The result is that patients may be exposed to different levels of risk depending on where they live.

USAGE VARIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE BLACK BOX WARNING

 

The study found that there was a significant difference in usage of Avandia both before and after the imposition of the black box warning.

 

 

USAGE BEFORE THE BLACK BOX WARNING

Before the black box warning in 2007 Avandia was widely prescribed across the country, but there were still regional difference in use:

  • In Oklahoma, Avandia was prescribed about 15.5% of the time.
  • In North Dakota, Avandia was prescribed about 8% of the time.

 

 

USUAGE AFTER THE BLACK BOX WARNING

After the 2007 black box warning was required, the use of Avandia dropped dramatically, but there was still a significant amount of use of the drug, and the use of the drug varied regionally. Following the requirement of the black box warning, Avandia prescriptions dropped nationally 1.3 million monthly prescriptions in January 2007 to approximately 317,000 monthly prescriptions in June 2009.

  • In Oklahoma, Avandia use dropped to about 5.6 percent.
  • In North Dakota it tumbled to 1.9 percent.

EXPLANATION OF THE STUDY’S FINDINGS

The reasons for the differences aren’t clear, but researchers believe that the explanation for the different usage patterns are due in part to:

  • How doctors are made aware of FDA warnings and how they react.
  • The policies of state health insurance plans, including Medicaid, in terms of whether or not the drug is covered under state plans; and
  • Marketing by the drug-company.

 

LEGAL RIGHTS OF PATIENTS INJURED BY AVANDIA

 

If you were prescribed the diabetes drug Avandia® and after taking Avandia® you suffered a heart attack or stroke then you may be eligible for compensation. Heart Attacks and Strokes have been identified as Avandia® Side Effects. In addition, if you have suffered other side effects associated with taking Avandia®, you should contact an attorney to discuss your rights. You may be entitled to compensation.

The law in most states provides several personal injury claims for persons who have been seriously injured by a prescription drug with excessive and dangerous side effects. These claims include strict liability for a defective product, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation. Damages sought against pharmaceutical companies for dangerous drug side effects and injuries include at least the following types of damages:

 

  • Physical pain and suffering, mental anguish;
  • Physical impairment;
  • Medical expenses associated with efforts to remedy the injuries as a result of the original surgery;
  • Loss of earnings and/or earning capacity; and
  • In the case of a patient’s death, the family of the victim may file a wrongful death action and seek damages.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

Toll Free (877) 529-8899

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE RESERVES $2.36 BILLION FOR AVANDIA SETTLEMENTS | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog

GLAXOSMITHKLINE RESERVES $2.36 BILLION FOR AVANDIA SETTLEMENTS

By Rachel E. Montes posted in Avandia on Wednesday, October 27, 2010

glaxo Smith Kline building.JPG

avandia box.jpg

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) CEO Andrew Witty announced that GlaxoSmithKline is under investigation from the Justice Department and several states for actions related to the development and marketing of its diabetes drug Avandia. The company is responding to a subpoena from Justice as well as civil investigative demands from numerous state attorneys general, the company said Thursday. GSK took a $2.36 billion charge against its earnings in the second quarter of this year to settle litigation related to Avandia (rosiglitazone), but now it has been hit with more lawsuits over the drug,

 

Meanwhile GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the Justice Department have finalized a settlement agreement in which the UK drugmaker will pay $750 million to settle an investigation into a now-shuttered Puerto Rico facility where adulterated drugs were made.

 

LEGAL RIGHTS OF PATIENTS INJURED BY AVANDIA

The law in most states provides several personal injury claims for persons who have been seriously injured by a prescription drug with excessive and dangerous side effects. These claims include strict liability for a defective product, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation. Damages sought against pharmaceutical companies for dangerous drug side effects and injuries include at least the following types of damages:

  • Physical pain and suffering, mental anguish;
  • Physical impairment;
  • Medical expenses associated with efforts to remedy the injuries as a result of the original surgery;
  • Loss of earnings and/or earning capacity; and
  • In the case of a patient’s death, the family of the victim may file a wrongful death action and seek damages.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

Toll Free (877) 529-8899

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

US AND ENGLAND HEALTH OFFICIALS DEBATE DANGERS OF AVANDIA | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog

US AND ENGLAND HEALTH OFFICIALS DEBATE DANGERS OF AVANDIA

By Rachel E. Montes posted in Avandia on Tuesday, October 26, 2010

FDA emblem.bmpavandia.bmpEMEA.bmp

Last week, there was an unplanned debate between high leval health officials of America’s and Britain’s drug regulatory agencies over the role and value of hemoglobin A1c reduction in diabetes drug approval.

Janet Woodcock, the Director for the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, chairman of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, better known as the MHRA, discussed their thoughts on Avandia at the Third Annual Risk Management and Drug Safety Summit in Washington, D.C. on October 18, 2010.

Janet Woodcock discussed efforts to improve risk management and drug safety since passage of the FDA Amendments Act. She was followed at the podium by Breckenridge, who presented the European perspective on risk management and a pharmacovigilance “tool kit” for assessing and mitigating drug risks.

Near the end of his presentation, Breckenridge turned to the recent regulatory decisions on Avandia, GlaxoSmithKline’s beleaguered thiazolidinedione. Even though FDA and the European Medicines Agency took different regulatory paths – with FDA restricting distribution under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, and EMA suspending rosiglitazone’s license – Breckenridge stressed the extensive collaboration between the two agencies that culminated in simultaneous announcements on September 23, 2010.

 

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE

On September 23, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it will significantly restrict the use of the diabetes drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) to patients with Type 2 diabetes who cannot control their diabetes on other medications. These new restrictions are in response to data that suggest an elevated risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, in patients treated with Avandia. Meanwhile, Avandia has been taken off of the market in Europe. European regulators say that the risk of heart attack associated with Avandia is too great a safety concern to continue its use for most people.

 

AVANDIA & THE INCREASED RISK OF HEART ATTACK

The FDA confirmed that studies show that Avandia® increases a patients’ risk of suffering a heart attack by 43% and cardiac-related death by 64%. These Avandia® side effects may not have been adequately disclosed by the manufacturer and an Avandia® Recall has yet to materialize.

There have been multiple panels held to determine whether there should be an Avandia® Recall and despite the staggering amount of lawsuits filed against the product an Avandia® A recall has not been ordered. Since Avandia® has yet to receive a recall if you or your loved ones uses Avandia® and are worried that your health is at risk speak to your doctor immediately.

If you were prescribed the diabetes drug Avandia® and after taking Avandia® you suffered a heart attack or stroke then you may be eligible for compensation. Heart Attacks and Strokes have been identified as Avandia® Side Effects. In addition, if you have suffered other side effects associated with taking Avandia®, you should contact an attorney to discuss your rights. You may be entitled to compensation.

Other reported side effects from taking Avandia include:

  • Death
  • Heart Attacks
  • Congestive Heart Failure
  • PPH – Primary Pulmonary Hypertension
  • Bone Fractures
  • Blindness
  • Liver Failure
  • Hepatitis

 

THE DEBATE ON AVANDIA
“If you think about the difference between what Europe has done and what the U.S. has done, in fact I would suggest there was very little difference indeed, and it was an example of regulatory authorities working together in a global manner,” he said. (“The Pink Sheet” offers an analysis of why they diverged in their final judgment.)  CLICK HERE TO VIEW A COPY OF THE PINK SHEETThe Pink Sheet on Avandia.pdf

Following these glowing remarks about alignment among regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, Breckenridge took the Avandia post-mortem a step further, and perhaps one too far for Woodcock.

“The question I’ve asked myself is if Avandia came through for licensing today, with the information we had, what should be done, what would we have done? How has regulation advanced? Well firstly, it wouldn’t have been approved for efficacy on a surrogate marker [HbA1c]. That would not be accepted,” he said. Some in industry concur that there is now a higher hurdle, at least commercially, for diabetes products.

Fortunately for the audience, Woodcock hung around after her presentation to hear Breckenridge’s speech, and during a question and answer session, while still sitting in the audience, Woodcock pounced on the British knight’s skepticism toward HbA1c. Here is an abbreviated transcript of the exchange, along with some first-hand, editorial observations noted in brackets:

Woodcock: “If you’re not going to use hemoglobin A1c or serum glucose … what are you going to use for efficacy in diabetes? No drug in type 2 diabetes has ever been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes.”

Breckenridge: “I believe this illustrates the problem with antidiabetic drugs. I believe it’s going to be increasingly difficult to develop any drug for diabetes which has got a suggestion that Avandia did have, and I think drugs like Avandia are going to die at a much earlier stage and be killed at a much earlier stage than developed.”

Woodcock: “I would say the question with rosiglitazone is a safety issue, it’s not an efficacy issue … I think hemoglobin A1c is more than a surrogate … I date as an internist from the era when people walked around with untreated type 2 diabetes. They hit my emergency room they were in hyperosmolar coma. That’s a life-threatening disease. Or they had severe invasive soft tissue infection with gram negative organisms, or they were dehydrated and had blurry vision and CNS issues.”

Breckenridge: [apparently attempting to explain that not all type 2 diabetics are in such dire straits] “I can remember as well, and I’m not sort of swapping stories with you, but patients with type 2 diabetes are the rather large ladies who you see walking around in the United Kingdom and I’m afraid Washington as well.” [disapproving murmurs from the audience.

Woodcock: “But if you go untreated long enough with type 2 diabetes that’s what you get into. It’s a progressive disease. So the idea that you don’t need treatments for type 2 diabetes I think is an incorrect …. ”

Breckenridge: “I’m not suggesting that ….”

Woodcock: “You will get renal failure, you’ll get amputation … It’s a symptomatic disease. People have studied this and they’ve looked at central nervous system effects of hyperglycemia … There are people walking around with blood sugar 300, 400 and so on. That is not good for you, acutely. And sub-acutely, glycemic control has been shown to be correlated with progression of retinopathy, renal failure and so forth, and neuropathy to some extent. [By now standing, holding the microphone and looking as comfortable as a talk show host on a TV production set] So I would take issue with the fact that hemoglobin A1c is a bad surrogate. I think it’s a very good surrogate for efficacy. I don’t think it tells you anything about safety of a drug just like most surrogates for efficacy.”

Breckendridge: “I’m afraid I disagree with you there, Janet. I think by the definition of a surrogate, hemoglobin A1c fulfills all the criteria … and the point I was trying to make was that if you take, in the development of a drug in the latter phase of the drug, and you had a drug which was effective by affecting the surrogate, but it had some other not just potential but huge changes, big changes which were known at the time in a possible adverse event which diabetics are already prone to, the manufacturers, I would suggest, would have a very, very careful look at that before continuing with its development.”

Woodcock: “I don’t think we’re in disagreement, I’m simply saying I thought the earlier definitions [of a surrogate] were mainly done by statisticians, like Prentiss and others … that it should contain all outcomes. That’s completely naive from a biological perspective, because you may perfectly control the disease and kill people from something else. It’s unrelated to the pathway of the disease. So I think expectation that a surrogate for efficacy would take care of your safety evaluation is unrealistic, and I think we’re saying the same thing, which is for chronic diseases there’s going to have to be a much more thorough safety evaluation, it’s longer term, includes more patients, looks for more outcomes than we have traditionally had.”

Breckenridge: “And I think diabetes is an especially difficult case for the reason I described. If you’ve got a disease whose natural history is to develop vascular disease anyway, then a drug which is going to influence that in any kind of adverse way is not good news.”

Woodcock: “The sulfonylureas have long had a warning in the United States for cardiovascular disease because the only time that was studied long-term there was a signal.”

Breckenridge: “And so do the thiazide diuretics, too.”

Woodcock: [laughing] “So there’s a lot of things we don’t know.”

 

LEGAL RIGHTS OF PATIENTS INJURED BY AVANDIA

The law in most states provides several personal injury claims for persons who have been seriously injured by a prescription drug with excessive and dangerous side effects. These claims include strict liability for a defective product, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation. Damages sought against pharmaceutical companies for dangerous drug side effects and injuries include at least the following types of damages:

  • Physical pain and suffering, mental anguish;
  • Physical impairment;
  • Medical expenses associated with efforts to remedy the injuries as a result of the original surgery;
  • Loss of earnings and/or earning capacity; and
  • In the case of a patient’s death, the family of the victim may file a wrongful death action and seek damages.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

Toll Free (877) 529-8899

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.