The order certifying a class of third-party payors in the long-running Avandia MDL was the wrong result for the wrong reasons, and the Third Circuit has now vacated that order in an opinion that is well worth the read. In In Re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, No. 25-2278, 2026 WL
Search results for: avandia
Third Party Payer Class Certified in Avandia MDL
The Avandia MDL has been a long, winding, and ultimately meritless road. The FDA approved the drug to treat Type II diabetes in 1999, and the MDL got going in 2007, after a widely publicized, but ultimately disproven meta-analysis purported to show that Avandia presented an increased risk of heart attacks.
That was 18 years…
Avandia Litigation – Is This Finally the End?
Lord knows, there are a lot of meritless MDLs. Bexis’ and Michelle’s Bone Screw litigation, prompted by a televised CYA freak-out by then-FDA Commissioner David Kessler over an off-label use that had become the medical standard of care, was one, and it gave us Buckman. Several MDLs against modern anticoagulants, such as Xarelto, are another example, since all of those second-generation drugs were safer than the older forms of blood thinners they superseded. Currently, the Taxotere MDL – based on the dubious proposition that the plaintiffs cared more about hair loss than most effectively treating their breast cancer – and Zostavax – where not a single plaintiff can prove causation – come to mind. Our colleagues defending other MDLS can also be excused for believing that their own litigation should be added to this list.
But for sheer factual baselessness, it would be hard to top the still-ongoing Avandia MDL, which somehow has managed to persist since 2007. The Avandia litigation is infamously based on a purported increased risk that, over a decade ago, the FDA scientifically determined did not exist. Briefly, a study erroneously found an increased risk of cardiovascular events with Avandia that led to both a boxed warning and additional studies. The additional studies debunked that supposed increased risk and the FDA removed the boxed warning:
Continue Reading Avandia Litigation – Is This Finally the End?Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Avandia Failure-to-Warn Claims
A little over a year ago, we reported on a decision by Judge Rufe (E.D. Pa.) dismissing an Avandia heart attack case on the grounds of the learned intermediary rule (Utah law). All of the plaintiff’s claims boiled down to an alleged failure to warn, and that was a problem for the plaintiff, as the…
Avandia Case Flunks Warning Causation
We’re now into the New Year but aren’t completely done with the old one. The name of the first month of the year, January, is conventionally attributed to Janus, the Roman god of beginnings, gates, transitions, and doorways. (We say “conventionally” because some sources report that January is actually named after its tutelary deity, Juno.) …
Solid Affirmances: Avandia Summary Judgment, and Westminster
We were not able to make our annual pilgrimage to the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show this year, so we had to settle for watching the televised portions on the couch with the Drug and Device Law Rescued Ragamuffins. And the cat. (We mostly resisted the all-day live feed of the breed judging.) Since the Best in Show lineup didn’t include a Standard Poodle, our “breed of the heart” (a cute Bulldog named Annabelle beat Ricky, the stunning black Standard Poodle, in the Nonsporting Group), and being nothing if not bandwagon jumpers, we were rooting for “Rumor” a gorgeous German Shepherd who was the top winning show dog of 2015 by many, many points. And she showed beautifully. But she was defeated by “C.J.,” a German Shorthaired Pointer. While we don’t count ourselves as sporting breed fanciers, C.J. is a cool dog. And, most interestingly (maybe not, but it gives us a hook to transition to our case in a minute), C. J.’s grandmother, Carlee, was Best in Show in 2005. Carlee was known for her flawless “free stack” – instead of needing her handler to place her feet in the right positions and stretch out her neck – “stack” her – for the judge’s examination, she did it all by herself in the most striking of fashions. Westminster trivia: like the Adamses and the Bushes, Westminster can count one example of a father siring his eventual successor: Robert, the English Springer Spaniel, was Best in Show in 1993. His daughter, Samantha, “took the Garden” seven years later. The ostensible point of dog shows is to reward the best specimens of each breed so they will pass their genes to future generations, so it is neat when a judge’s good decision is affirmed.
And so it was recently in the Third Circuit. In In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (Linda and John Schatz, appellants), — Fed. Appx, –, 2016 WL 574074 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Pennsylvania law), the panel considered Judge Cynthia Rufe’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant manufacturer in a case in the Avandia MDL. The plaintiff, who had taken Avandia, sustained bone fractures in two accidents and alleged that the manufacturer had failed to adequately warn of the risk of such fractures. The manufacturer had informed doctors of this risk and, shortly thereafter, updated its warnings to include this information. While it was not clear whether the plaintiff had already stopped taking the drug at this time, it was undisputed that she resumed taking it for a short time after the “bone fractures” warning was added to the label.Continue Reading Solid Affirmances: Avandia Summary Judgment, and Westminster
Lone Pine order entered in Avandia litigation
We have written before about the virtues of Lone Pine orders, which require plaintiffs to produce elementary evidence supporting their claims, usually some prima face evidence of exposure, injury, and causation. These orders provide an excellent tool to eliminate the cases filed in any mass tort by people just hoping to cash in without having…
An Avandia Removal Spat
Egad — yet another post on removal!
We’ll try to keep it mercifully brief.
In In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., [That caption about covers the waterfront, doesn’t it?] MDL No. 1871, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51558 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2009), GlaxoSmithKline removed two “Avandia supposedly increases the risk of…
No Physical Injury, No Economic Damages, No Standing, No Class
Running on Empty -The Ten Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions Of 2025
It’s time for our annual parade of horribles. It’s no fun, but somebody needs to do it, if only to make sure that the other side, and those who aid and abet them, know that we are paying attention. So here is our annual naughty list, the bottom ten worst prescription medical product liability litigation…