Infant Formula and NEC: Legal Options for West Virginia Families

/by

The birth of a premature infant is a profound experience, a journey marked by incredible hope and often, unexpected fragility. These tiny warriors fight for every breath, every ounce, and every milestone. When such a precious life is suddenly imperiled by a severe and aggressive condition like necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), the world can tilt on its axis for a family.

The discovery that certain cow’s milk-based infant formulas, products often provided in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), may be significantly linked to this devastating intestinal disease transforms anxiety and fear into a quest for answers, accountability, and justice. For numerous West Virginia families, this path is fraught with medical complexities and daunting legal questions.

At Powell & Majestro, P.L.L.C., we have long stood with West Virginia families navigating the turbulent waters of personal injury and product liability litigation. Our commitment is to provide not only robust legal representation but also compassionate support and clear, understandable information.

The Pathophysiology: How NEC Develops

The exact cascade of events leading to NEC is multifactorial and not entirely understood, but it’s believed to involve an immature intestinal barrier, an abnormal microbial colonization of the gut, an exaggerated inflammatory response, and compromised blood flow to the intestines.

  1. Intestinal Immaturity: Premature infants have an underdeveloped intestinal lining that is more permeable than that of a full-term baby. This “leaky gut” can allow bacteria and toxins to pass from the intestinal lumen into the bowel wall and potentially the bloodstream. Their ability to digest and absorb nutrients, especially complex ones found in cow’s milk, is limited.
  2. Abnormal Bacterial Colonization: The gut microbiome of a premature infant is different and often less diverse than that of a healthy, breastfed full-term infant. The introduction of formula, particularly cow’s milk-based products, can promote the growth of pathogenic bacteria.
  3. Inflammatory Cascade: When bacteria invade the intestinal wall, they trigger a powerful inflammatory response. In the immature gut of a preemie, this response can be overwhelming and uncontrolled, leading to the release of damaging cytokines and other inflammatory mediators. This inflammation further damages the intestinal tissue.
  4. Ischemia and Necrosis: The inflammation can compromise blood flow (ischemia) to sections of the intestine. Without adequate oxygen and nutrients, the intestinal cells begin to die (necrosis). This can affect small patches or extensive portions of the bowel.
  5. Gas Formation and Perforation: As bacteria proliferate in the damaged tissue, they can produce gas, which may accumulate within the intestinal wall (pneumatosis intestinalis – a hallmark sign of NEC on X-ray). In severe cases, the necrotic bowel wall can perforate, spilling intestinal contents (bacteria, stool) into the abdominal cavity, leading to peritonitis and life-threatening systemic infection (sepsis).

NEC is often staged based on its severity (e.g., Bell’s staging criteria), ranging from suspected NEC (Stage I) with mild, non-specific symptoms, to definite NEC (Stage II) with clear clinical and radiological signs, to advanced NEC (Stage III) involving intestinal perforation and shock.

Who is Most at Risk? Expanded Risk Factors

While prematurity is the single greatest risk factor, several other elements can contribute:

  • Gestational Age and Birth Weight: Infants born before 32 weeks gestation and weighing less than 1500 grams (approximately 3.3 pounds) are at the highest risk. The risk decreases with increasing gestational age and birth weight.
  • Type of Feeding: This is a critical factor. As will be discussed extensively, formula feeding, particularly with cow’s milk-based formulas, significantly increases the risk compared to exclusive human milk feeding.
  • Difficult Birth or Asphyxia: Infants who experience oxygen deprivation around the time of birth may have reduced blood flow to the intestines, predisposing them to injury.
  • Congenital Heart Disease: Certain heart conditions can affect blood flow to the gut.
  • Infections: Other infections can increase an infant’s vulnerability.
  • Rapid Advancement of Feeds: Introducing or increasing feed volumes too quickly in a premature infant may overwhelm their digestive capacity.

Diagnosing NEC: Uncovering the Threat

Early diagnosis is vital for improving outcomes in NEC. Clinicians look for a combination of signs and symptoms, supported by diagnostic tests:

  • Clinical Symptoms: These can be initially subtle and non-specific in premature infants. They include:
    • Feeding intolerance (increased residuals in the stomach before the next feeding, vomiting, especially if bile-stained)
    • Abdominal distension (a swollen, often shiny and tender belly)
    • Bloody stools (visible or occult blood)
    • Lethargy, apnea (pauses in breathing), bradycardia (slow heart rate)
    • Temperature instability (difficulty maintaining body temperature)
    • Signs of shock in severe cases (low blood pressure, poor perfusion)
  • Radiological Imaging: Abdominal X-rays are key. They may show:
    • Dilated bowel loops
    • Pneumatosis intestinalis (gas cysts in the bowel wall)
    • Portal venous gas (gas in the veins leading to the liver, a more ominous sign)
    • Free air in the abdomen (pneumoperitoneum), indicating a bowel perforation – a surgical emergency. Abdominal ultrasound may also be used to assess bowel wall thickness, perfusion, and detect fluid collections.
  • Laboratory Tests: Blood tests can show signs of infection and inflammation, such as:
    • Elevated white blood cell count (or sometimes a very low count)
    • Low platelet count (thrombocytopenia)
    • Elevated C-reactive protein (CRP)
    • Metabolic acidosis (an imbalance in the body’s acid-base levels)

Treatment Modalities for NEC: A Difficult Battle

Once NEC is suspected or confirmed, treatment is initiated immediately:

  • Medical Management (for non-perforated NEC):
    • Bowel Rest: All oral or tube feedings are stopped to allow the intestines to heal. The infant receives nutrition intravenously (Total Parenteral Nutrition – TPN).
    • Gastric Decompression: A tube is inserted through the nose or mouth into the stomach to remove air and fluid, reducing pressure in the gut.
    • Broad-Spectrum Antibiotics: Given intravenously to treat or prevent infection.
    • Supportive Care: This includes IV fluids, monitoring of vital signs, respiratory support (if needed), and management of pain.
  • Surgical Intervention: Surgery is required if there is evidence of bowel perforation or if the infant’s condition deteriorates despite medical management. Surgical options include:
    • Exploratory Laparotomy: The surgeon opens the abdomen to directly inspect the intestines, identify and remove any necrotic (dead) bowel tissue.
    • Bowel Resection: The diseased portion of the intestine is removed. The surgeon then attempts to reconnect the healthy ends (anastomosis).
    • Ostomy Creation: If direct reconnection is not possible or safe (often due to widespread inflammation or the infant’s instability), the surgeon may bring an end of the intestine through an opening in the abdominal wall (an ostomy, e.g., ileostomy or colostomy). Stool then collects in a bag outside the body. This is often a temporary measure, with a second surgery planned later to reconnect the bowel.
    • Peritoneal Drain Placement: In very small or unstable infants, a drain may be placed into the abdomen as a less invasive initial step to manage perforation, with a formal surgery to follow when the infant is more stable.

The Devastating and Lasting Consequences of NEC

Surviving NEC is often just the beginning of a long and challenging medical journey. The long-term complications can be profound and lifelong:

  • Short Bowel Syndrome (SBS): If a significant portion of the small intestine had to be removed, the infant may develop SBS. This condition impairs the body’s ability to absorb sufficient nutrients and fluids, leading to malabsorption, malnutrition, diarrhea, and dependence on long-term TPN. TPN itself carries risks, including liver disease and infections. Infants with SBS often require multiple hospitalizations and specialized care.
  • Intestinal Strictures and Adhesions: As the damaged intestine heals, scar tissue can form, leading to narrowing of the bowel (strictures) or bands of scar tissue that can cause kinking or blockage (adhesions). These can cause recurrent abdominal pain, vomiting, and bowel obstructions, often necessitating further surgeries.
  • Neurodevelopmental Delays: A significant percentage of infants who survive severe NEC, particularly those requiring surgery, experience neurodevelopmental delays. These can range from mild learning disabilities to more severe cognitive impairments, motor skill deficits, and conditions like cerebral palsy. The mechanisms are complex and may relate to the systemic inflammation, nutritional deficiencies, prolonged hospitalization, and hypoxic-ischemic insults associated with severe NEC.
  • Growth Failure and Failure to Thrive: Due to feeding difficulties, malabsorption, and the high metabolic demands of recovery and chronic illness, many NEC survivors struggle with growth.
  • Cholestasis and Liver Disease: Prolonged TPN use, a common necessity for infants with severe NEC and SBS, can lead to cholestatic liver disease, where bile flow from the liver is reduced or blocked. This can progress to liver failure in some cases.
  • Increased Risk of Rehospitalization: Children who have had NEC are often re-hospitalized for complications related to their condition.
  • Psychological and Emotional Toll: The impact on the infant’s quality of life, as well as the immense emotional and financial strain on the family, cannot be overstated. Parents often face anxiety, stress, and the challenges of caring for a child with complex medical needs.

The Link to Cow’s Milk-Based Infant Formula: A Deeper Scientific Dive

The connection between cow’s milk-based infant formulas and an increased risk of NEC in premature infants is not a recent or speculative notion; it is supported by decades of scientific research and affirmed by leading pediatric health organizations worldwide.

Research and Mounting Evidence

Numerous studies, including observational research, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials, have consistently shown that premature infants fed an exclusive human milk diet have a significantly lower incidence of NEC compared to those fed cow’s milk-based formulas. Some meta-analyses suggest that formula-fed premature infants may be six to ten times more likely to develop NEC than those fed exclusively human milk, and for extremely premature infants, the risk may be even higher.

Human milk is uniquely suited to the needs of the premature infant. It contains a complex array of components that protect the gut and promote its maturation:

  • Immunoglobulins (especially IgA): Provide passive immunity, coating the intestinal lining and preventing bacteria from adhering and invading.
  • Lactoferrin and Lysozyme: Have antimicrobial properties.
  • Oligosaccharides (Human Milk Oligosaccharides – HMOs): Act as prebiotics, promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria in the gut, and can also act as decoys, preventing pathogens from binding to the intestinal wall.
  • Growth Factors: Stimulate the growth and repair of intestinal cells.
  • Anti-inflammatory Components: Help to modulate the infant’s immune response.
  • Easier Digestibility: The proteins and fats in human milk are more easily digested by the immature gut of a premature infant than those in cow’s milk.

Why Are Cow’s Milk-Based Formulas Problematic for Preemies?

Cow’s milk is designed for calves, not human infants, especially not premature ones. While infant formulas are modified, the fundamental differences remain:

  • Foreign Proteins: The proteins in cow’s milk (e.g., casein, beta-lactoglobulin) are different from human milk proteins and can be more difficult for a preemie’s gut to process, potentially triggering inflammatory or allergic-type reactions.
  • Osmolarity: Some formulas may have a higher osmolarity (concentration of particles) than human milk, which can draw fluid into the bowel, potentially stressing the intestinal lining.
  • Lack of Protective Components: Cow’s milk formulas lack the rich array of bioactive and immunological components found in human milk that actively protect the gut. While manufacturers add some vitamins and nutrients, they cannot replicate the complexity of human milk.
  • Impact on Gut Microbiome: Studies show that formula feeding leads to a different gut microbial profile compared to human milk feeding, often with fewer beneficial Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli and more potentially pathogenic bacteria.

The Stance of Major Health Organizations

Leading health authorities have long recognized the superiority and protective benefits of human milk for premature infants:

  • The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Explicitly recommends that all preterm infants be fed human milk. If the mother’s own milk is unavailable or insufficient, pasteurized donor human milk is the next best option. The AAP notes that a human milk-based diet is associated with lower rates of NEC.
  • The World Health Organization (WHO): Also advocates for human milk as the optimal nutrition for premature and low-birth-weight infants.

Despite this strong scientific consensus and the recommendations from these authoritative bodies, many cow’s milk-based formulas and fortifiers (products added to human milk to increase caloric and nutrient density, but often derived from cow’s milk) have been aggressively marketed to NICUs and parents of premature infants, often without clear, prominent warnings about the specific and heightened risk of NEC.

The Litigation Landscape: Pursuing Accountability from Manufacturers

The increasing scientific evidence linking cow’s milk-based formulas to NEC has paved the way for legal action by families whose premature infants suffered this devastating disease. Lawsuits filed against major manufacturers like Abbott Laboratories (maker of Similac products) and Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil products) have been steadily growing.

Core Legal Allegations in Detail

These lawsuits typically center on several key legal theories:

  1. Failure to Warn (Strict Liability and Negligence): This is often a central claim. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers knew or, based on available scientific evidence, reasonably should have known about the significant risk of NEC associated with their cow’s milk-based products when used in premature infants. Despite this knowledge, they allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors, hospitals, NICUs, and parents about this specific danger. An “adequate warning” would be one that is clear, conspicuous, and accurately conveys the nature and severity of the risk, allowing healthcare providers and parents to make truly informed decisions.
  2. Defective Design (Strict Liability and Negligence): This claim argues that the cow’s milk-based formulas were defectively designed for use in the vulnerable population of premature infants, especially when safer alternatives—namely, an exclusive human milk diet, supplemented with human milk-based fortifiers if necessary—were known to significantly reduce the risk of NEC. The argument is that the foreseeable risks of using these cow’s milk-based products in preemies outweighed any potential benefits, particularly given the availability of safer feeding options.
  3. Negligence: Beyond specific design or warning defects, negligence claims allege that the manufacturers breached a general duty of care owed to consumers. This could encompass negligent marketing practices (minimizing risks or overstating benefits for preemies), negligent failure to conduct adequate post-market surveillance, or negligent failure to update product formulations or warnings as more scientific evidence about NEC became available.
  4. Breach of Implied Warranty: This legal theory suggests that products come with an “implied warranty of merchantability,” meaning they are reasonably fit for their ordinary intended purpose. It’s argued that a formula causing or significantly increasing the risk of a life-threatening condition like NEC in its intended users (premature infants) is not fit for that purpose.

The Role of Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in NEC Cases

Given the large number of similar lawsuits filed in federal courts across the United States, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated many of the NEC infant formula cases into an MDL. This MDL (MDL No. 3026, In re: Abbott Laboratories Preterm Infant Nutrition Products Liability Litigation) is currently centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Recent Developments and Settlements

The legal battle surrounding NEC infant formula litigation is dynamic, with significant developments impacting families nationwide.

July 2024: $495 Million Jury Verdict Against Abbott Laboratories

A Missouri jury ordered Abbott Laboratories to pay $495 million in damages on July 26, 2024, after finding the company liable for failing to warn about necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) risks associated with its Similac Special Care 24 formula. The verdict included $95 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages for Margo Gill’s daughter, Robynn Davis, a premature infant who developed NEC in 2021 after consuming the formula. The jury concluded Abbott knew of NEC risks linked to cow’s milk-based formulas as early as 2009 but withheld warnings from parents and healthcare providers.

March 2025: Retrial Ordered in Defense’s Sole Victory

On March 14, 2025, Missouri Judge Michael Noble vacated Abbott and Mead Johnson’s only trial win in the NEC litigation, citing “intentional and repeated misconduct” by defense attorneys during an October 2024 trial. The original case involved Kaine Whitfield, a premature infant who developed NEC after being fed Similac and Enfamil. Judge Noble ruled defense teams violated court orders by introducing inadmissible evidence, making misleading arguments about formula shortages, and improperly referencing FDA approvals. The retrial order erased the defendants’ sole favorable verdict, leaving them without a single trial victory as of May 2025.

Ongoing Litigation as of May 2025

 Federal MDL Status: 710 cases remain active in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL 3026) before Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer. The first federal bellwether trial (Mar v. Abbott) was dismissed on May 5, 2025, due to insufficient evidence linking Abbott’s warnings to the infant’s death, though expert testimony on the formula-NEC connection was preserved for future cases. Additional bellwether trials are scheduled for August 2025 (K.B. v. Abbott) and February 2026 (Inman v. Mead Johnson).

  • State Court Actions: New lawsuits continue to emerge, including cases filed in Arizona in May 2025 alleging NEC-related injuries and deaths from Similac products. State-level verdicts remain influential, such as the $60 million Illinois award against Mead Johnson in March 2024 and the $495 million Missouri verdict.

Scientific and Legal Implications

 Evidence in Dispute: Internal Abbott documents revealed during trials showed the company acknowledged NEC risks tied to formula feeding as early as 2009. Plaintiffs argue studies since the 1990s demonstrate NEC incidence is 6–10× higher in formula-fed preemies compared to breastfed infants. Defense teams counter that NEC has multifactorial causes and that formulas remain critical for preterm infants who cannot access human milk.

  • Regulatory Context: Judges have permitted expert testimony on the formula-NEC link despite defense challenges, though some cases (e.g., Mar v. Abbott) have failed on causation grounds.

Contact Powell & Majestro for Knowledgeable and Compassionate Legal Guidance

The legal team at Powell & Majestro, P.L.L.C., has decades of experience fighting for West Virginians who have been harmed by the negligence of others and by dangerous products. We understand the science and the law involved in complex cases like those linking infant formula to NEC.

If your premature infant was diagnosed with necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed a cow’s milk-based formula such as Similac or Enfamil, we are here to help you understand your rights and explore your legal options.

Call Powell & Majestro today at (800) 650-2889 or contact us through our website to learn how we can fight for your family.

The Rising Wave of Ozempic Lawsuits: What West Virginians Need to Know

/by

The drug Ozempic, which has been widely used for managing diabetes and weight loss, has transitioned from a medical solution to a source of legal scrutiny. As lawsuits mount nationwide, West Virginians find themselves at the heart of this issue, given the state’s significant reliance on such medications. The legal battles over Ozempic’s side effects bring to light critical questions about drug safety, transparency, and the responsibilities of pharmaceutical giants like Novo Nordisk.

The Legal Landscape of Ozempic Lawsuits

The legal actions surrounding Ozempic have coalesced into what’s known in legal circles as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). This process consolidates similar lawsuits into one court to more effectively manage pretrial proceedings:

  • MDL for Efficiency: The MDL for Ozempic injury lawsuits ensures that common legal questions are addressed uniformly, reducing the risk of inconsistent rulings across different jurisdictions. This is particularly relevant for West Virginia, where the high prevalence of diabetes and obesity has led to significant Ozempic class action involvement.
  • West Virginia’s Unique Context: The state’s health profile makes it a focal point in the national narrative of Ozempic adverse effects lawsuits. Here, the lawsuits intersect with public health, as the drug has been both a treatment and a point of concern.
  • Legal Representation: Firms like Powell & Majestro are pivotal in navigating these Novo Nordisk legal battles, offering legal recourse to those who might have suffered from Ozempic negligence claims.

 

Key Allegations Against Novo Nordisk

The crux of these lawsuits lies in allegations that Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic, was remiss in warning users about potential severe side effects, which include:

  • Gastroparesis Concerns: Often termed “stomach paralysis lawsuits,” these claims assert that users were not adequately warned about the risk of delayed stomach emptying, a condition known as gastroparesis.
  • Gallbladder Complications: Another significant claim involves Ozempic and gallbladder disease claims, where patients allege they developed gallbladder issues post-treatment.
  • Marketing and Labeling Scrutiny: There’s a contention that failure to warn allegations is not just about what was said but how it was communicated. The Ozempic legal timeline shows a pattern where initial marketing might have glossed over these risks.

 

Health Risks Linked to Ozempic

Ozempic, generically known as Semaglutide, is a GLP-1 receptor agonist that mimics the incretin hormone to manage blood sugar, slow gastric emptying, and promote satiety. However, its use has been associated with various health risks, fueling the current wave of litigation. These include:

  • Gastroparesis (Stomach Paralysis): This severe side effect, leading to delayed stomach emptying, causes nausea, vomiting, and intense abdominal pain. It’s central to many “stomach paralysis lawsuits,” with some patients requiring medical intervention or hospitalization.
  • Intestinal Obstruction: There are reports linking Ozempic to blockages in the intestines, a potentially life-threatening condition, highlighting concerns about the drug’s effects on gut motility and safety.
  • Gallbladder Issues: Ozempic use has been associated with gallbladder inflammation and gallstone formation, prompting specific warnings due to changes in bile composition and cholesterol metabolism.
  • Vision Complications – NAION: Though not as common, there’s concern over Ozempic’s connection to vision loss via Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION), due to possible impacts on blood flow to the optic nerve.
  • Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer: Debates and lawsuits center around the drug potentially raising pancreatitis risks, with caution also regarding long-term pancreatic cancer risks, especially in those with additional risk factors.
  • Thyroid Issues: The drug carries a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors in rodents, leading to human concerns about thyroid cancer, especially over extended use.
  • Kidney and Renal Complications: Ozempic has been linked to acute kidney injuries, particularly in those with pre-existing kidney issues, potentially exacerbated by dehydration from gastrointestinal side effects.
  • Neurological and Psychological Effects: Some users have reported severe depression or suicidal thoughts, prompting investigations into whether the drug’s impact on brain pathways could extend to mental health.
  • Muscle Loss and ‘Ozempic Face’: Rapid weight loss can lead to muscle mass reduction (sarcopenia) and the phenomenon known as “Ozempic face,” where facial volume loss and sagging occur due to rapid skin changes.
  • Allergic Reactions: From mild skin reactions to severe anaphylaxis, allergic responses to Ozempic have been noted, requiring immediate medical attention in severe cases.

This spectrum of health risks from Ozempic underscores the drug’s complex interaction with the human body. Each reported side effect contributes to the broader narrative of Ozempic health risks, advocating for more vigilant monitoring and possibly revised prescription guidelines.


Novo Nordisk’s Response to the Lawsuits

In the face of mounting legal challenges regarding Ozempic, Novo Nordisk has adopted a multi-faceted approach to address the concerns and defend its product:

  • Official Statements and Public Defense: Novo Nordisk has consistently maintained that patient safety is its highest priority. The company has publicly defended Ozempic, asserting that all known risks are disclosed in the drug’s labeling and that the side effects reported in lawsuits are well-documented in the medical literature.
  • Label Updates: In response to legal actions and ongoing pharmacovigilance, Novo Nordisk has updated Ozempic’s labeling several times. These updates include more explicit warnings about gastrointestinal side effects, gallbladder issues, potential vision loss, and other adverse events, aiming to enhance transparency and patient awareness.
  • Scientific Defense: The company has leaned on extensive clinical trial data to argue that the side effects, while present, are not more frequent than expected for the class of drugs Ozempic belongs to. Novo Nordisk has also highlighted that in many cases, the conditions claimed in lawsuits were pre-existing or not definitively linked to their product.
  • Legal Filings and Motions to Dismiss: Novo Nordisk has actively filed motions to dismiss various lawsuits, arguing that plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to link their conditions directly to Ozempic. They’ve challenged claims under various legal standards, such as the adequacy of warnings given through healthcare providers (the “learned intermediary” doctrine).
  • Settlements and Litigation Strategy: While defending its product, Novo Nordisk has also engaged in strategic settlements in some cases to mitigate legal risks and public relations fallout. These settlements are often confidential, but they suggest an acknowledgment of some level of responsibility or a desire to avoid protracted legal battles.
  • Enhancements in Post-Marketing Surveillance: The company has ramped up its post-marketing surveillance efforts, investing in pharmacovigilance to monitor Ozempic use more closely for adverse events. This includes collaboration with regulatory agencies like the FDA for ongoing safety assessments.
  • Patient Support and Education: Novo Nordisk has initiated or expanded patient support programs, providing educational materials, support lines, and resources to help users understand and manage potential side effects. This is part of a broader strategy to maintain trust and improve patient outcomes.
  • Engagement with Healthcare Providers: Recognizing the role of healthcare providers in patient safety, Novo Nordisk has worked to improve how information about Ozempic’s risks is communicated. This involves training and informational campaigns aimed at doctors and pharmacists to ensure they are well-informed when prescribing or dispensing the drug.
  • Research and Development: The company continues to invest in research to better understand the drug’s long-term effects and possibly develop safer alternatives or modifications to existing formulations. This proactive approach aims not only to address current concerns but also to prevent future legal challenges by refining their product offerings.
  • Public Relations and Transparency Efforts: To manage public perception, Novo Nordisk has engaged in transparent communication about ongoing research, updates to drug information, and responses to regulatory inquiries. This includes public statements, press releases, and participation in health forums to discuss the drug’s safety profile.

Novo Nordisk’s handling of the Ozempic litigation showcases a company struggling to shield its lucrative drug from scrutiny, despite clear evidence linking their product to serious health complications. Their responses, often defensive and minimal, underscore a significant level of accountability for the harm caused to users. It’s evident that while Ozempic has offered some benefits, Novo Nordisk has failed in its duty to adequately warn and protect patients, highlighting the urgent need for legal action to hold them accountable for the widespread injuries suffered.

 

Implications for West Virginians

The outcomes of these lawsuits could have far-reaching effects:

  • Healthcare Policy Adaptation: Given West Virginia’s health demographics, these lawsuits might influence how obesity and diabetes treatments are approached, including weight management drugs and complications.
  • Potential for Compensation: The lawsuits could lead to settlements or compensation for those adversely affected, impacting Ozempic lawsuit compensation amounts and setting precedents for future pharmaceutical litigation.
  • Public Health Dialogue: There’s an ongoing conversation about the balance between drug innovation and patient safety, especially concerning off-label drug use lawsuits where drugs like Ozempic are used for weight loss beyond their primary indication.

 

Legal Guidance with Ozempic-Related Injuries in West Virginia

The surge in Ozempic lawsuits in West Virginia and throughout the country is not just a legal phenomenon, it is a reflection of broader issues concerning drug safety, public health, and corporate responsibility. As these cases unfold, they serve as a poignant reminder of the need for vigilance in pharmaceutical oversight and the importance of informed consent in medical treatment.

Powell & Majestro, leaders in multi-district litigation (MDL), are committed to advocating for individuals who have been affected by Ozempic. If you or someone you know has been impacted, contact us for a free consultation to discuss your legal options.

Tepezza Lawsuits: Patients Seek Justice for Permanent Hearing Loss

/by

In the realm of rare disease treatments, Tepezza (teprotumumab-trbw) emerged as a significant development for patients suffering from thyroid eye disease (TED). Developed by Horizon Therapeutics and approved by the FDA in January 2020, Tepezza became the first and only medication specifically designed to treat this uncommon autoimmune condition that can cause bulging eyes, double vision, and potential vision loss.

However, what began as a promising treatment for TED patients has become a source of concern for a growing number of individuals. An increasing number of patients who underwent Tepezza treatment are reporting an unexpected and troubling side effect: hearing loss. Reports of hearing impairment, tinnitus, and other auditory complications have raised serious questions about the drug’s safety profile within the medical community treating TED.

 

Tepezza: A Promising Treatment with Hidden Dangers

Tepezza (teprotumumab-trbw) was hailed as a groundbreaking therapy for thyroid eye disease (TED), offering hope to patients suffering from this rare and debilitating condition. Its approval by the FDA marked a significant step forward for individuals grappling with the symptoms of TED, such as eye-bulging, double vision, and potential vision loss. However, as more information has come to light, concerns have arisen about potential risks that may have been overlooked during its development and approval process.

 

Initial Purpose: Treatment for Thyroid Eye Disease

Tepezza was developed to address a significant unmet medical need for patients with TED. This innovative treatment offered several groundbreaking benefits:

  • It was the first and only FDA-approved treatment for TED.
  • Designed to reduce eye bulging, double vision, and other symptoms associated with TED.
  • Provided a non-surgical alternative for patients.

During clinical trials, Tepezza showed promising results, with 71% to 83% of patients demonstrating a significant reduction in eye protrusion compared to placebo groups. These outcomes generated widespread enthusiasm among healthcare providers and patients alike.

 

FDA Approval Process: Were There Overlooked Red Flags?

Tepezza’s approval by the FDA in January 2020 was based on two clinical trials involving a total of 170 patients. While the initial warnings focused on infusion reactions, inflammatory bowel disease exacerbation, and hyperglycemia, the risk of hearing impairment, including permanent hearing loss, was not prominently featured. It wasn’t until July 2023 that the FDA updated Tepezza’s label to include a specific warning about severe hearing impairment, raising questions about the thoroughness of the initial approval process.

 

Horizon Therapeutics’ Marketing vs. Reality

Horizon Therapeutics embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign to promote Tepezza. This campaign played a pivotal role in the drug’s financial success, yet it may have downplayed potential risks. Key elements of the marketing strategy included:

  • Generating $820 million in first-year sales, far exceeding analyst projections.
  • Launching a pre-approval disease awareness campaign six months before FDA approval.
  • Achieving 95% brand awareness among target physicians within three months of launch.

Despite the impressive marketing, post-market data began to reveal a starkly different reality for some patients. Studies have indicated that up to 65% of patients reported hearing problems after receiving Tepezza treatment. Additionally, lawsuits allege that Horizon Therapeutics failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about the risks of permanent hearing loss, only updating the label years after its initial approval.

Uncovering the Link: Tepezza and Hearing Loss

As more patients received Tepezza treatment, a concerning pattern of hearing-related complications began to emerge. Researchers and medical professionals have sought to uncover the link between Tepezza and these auditory issues, leading to compelling scientific evidence.

 

Compelling Scientific Evidence

Key studies have highlighted the prevalence and nature of hearing complications associated with Tepezza:

  • Stanford University Study: This study evaluated 26 patients who received at least four infusions of Tepezza. Of these, 65% reported experiencing hearing problems, including hearing loss, tinnitus, and a sensation of ear plugging.
  • February 2022 Study: Published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, this study analyzed 27 patients and found that 81.5% reported hearing complications, a figure that is higher than the Stanford study and significantly higher than the 10% rate initially reported in clinical trials.

 

Types and Severity of Hearing Complications

Patients treated with Tepezza have reported a range of auditory issues, which can vary in severity. Commonly reported symptoms include:

  • Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL)
  • Tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
  • Ear plugging or fullness sensation
  • Autophony (unusually loud perception of one’s own voice)
  • Hypoacusis (decreased sound sensitivity)
  • Hyperacusis (increased sound sensitivity)

The onset of symptoms typically occurs after three to four infusions. While some patients experienced improvements over time, others reported persistent or long-term issues. Importantly, a history of prior hearing loss has been identified as a potential risk factor, emphasizing the need for comprehensive pre-treatment evaluations and ongoing monitoring during therapy.

 

The Legal Battle: Holding Horizon Therapeutics Accountable

The growing number of lawsuits against Horizon Therapeutics has shed light on the company’s alleged negligence in addressing Tepezza’s risks. This litigation highlights key issues that patients and healthcare providers must consider when weighing the benefits and risks of this medication.

To address these claims, the formation of multidistrict litigation (MDL) was a pivotal step in consolidating and managing the increasing number of cases.

 

Formation and Growth of the Tepezza MDL

The MDL aimed to consolidate pretrial proceedings and ensure consistent rulings across similar cases. Key milestones include:

  • August 2023: MDL formed with 41 cases.
  • November 2024: MDL expanded to 180 pending cases.

 

Key Allegations Demonstrating Manufacturer Negligence

Plaintiffs have raised several allegations of negligence against Horizon Therapeutics, including:

  • Failure to warn patients and providers despite early indications of hearing loss risks.
  • Insufficient pre-market testing, with approval based on limited clinical trials.
  • Delay in updating the product label to reflect known risks of hearing impairment.

These allegations underscore the importance of transparency and rigorous testing in ensuring patient safety.

 

The Human Cost: Patients’ Struggles

The impact of hearing loss extends far beyond physical symptoms, profoundly affecting the lives of patients and their families. This human toll underscores the importance of addressing Tepezza’s risks.

 

Life-Altering Impacts of Permanent Hearing Loss

Hearing loss can have profound effects on a patient’s quality of life. Common challenges reported by Tepezza patients include:

  • Communication difficulties leading to social isolation.
  • Increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.
  • Challenges in professional settings, affecting career prospects.
  • Loss of enjoyment in daily activities, such as listening to music or attending social gatherings.

 

Emotional and Financial Burdens

Beyond physical symptoms, hearing loss imposes significant emotional and financial burdens on patients and their families. These include:

  • Mental health struggles, including depression and anxiety.
  • Strained relationships due to communication barriers.
  • Financial costs for hearing aids, treatments, and potential loss of income.

For many patients, these challenges represent not only the physical consequences of hearing loss but also the emotional toll of adapting to an unexpected and often debilitating condition.

 

Horizon Therapeutics’ Negligence: A Closer Look

Critics have scrutinized Horizon’s actions surrounding Tepezza, suggesting lapses in addressing known risks and ensuring patient safety. These criticisms form a central theme in ongoing litigation.

Timeline of Knowledge vs. Action

The timeline of Horizon’s actions suggests a delay in addressing known risks. Early patient reports and studies indicated potential hearing issues, yet the label was not updated until July 2023. This delay is a central issue in the ongoing litigation.

Critique of Post-Market Surveillance Efforts

Critics argue that Horizon’s post-market monitoring efforts fell short. Delayed responses to safety signals and insufficient proactive monitoring have drawn scrutiny, highlighting the need for robust post-market surveillance systems.

 

The Ongoing Fight for Justice in Tepezza Litigation

The litigation surrounding Tepezza continues to evolve as more patients come forward, seeking accountability for the drug’s alleged risks.

As of December 2024, there are 191 pending cases in the Tepezza MDL. Bellwether trials are expected to begin in 2026, offering plaintiffs an opportunity to test the strength of their claims in court. These trials are likely to set the tone for future settlements and may provide valuable insights into how juries perceive the allegations against Horizon Therapeutics.

Legal experts estimate settlement amounts ranging from $75,000 to over $200,000, depending on the strength and circumstances of individual cases. These settlements could provide much-needed relief for affected patients, helping them cover medical expenses, lost wages, and other costs associated with their hearing loss.

Powell & Majestro, experienced leaders in pharmaceutical mass tort litigation, are dedicated to advocating for individuals who have suffered hearing loss or other auditory complications after Tepezza treatment. If you or a loved one has experienced hearing problems following Tepezza infusions, we encourage you to reach out to our firm. Our team of skilled attorneys is prepared to evaluate your case as part of the ongoing Tepezza multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Contact us today for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your legal options and potential inclusion in this important MDL. Let us help you seek the justice and compensation you deserve.

A look back at active mass torts lawsuits in 2023

/by

Product liability lawsuits are sometimes filed because one person has been harmed as a result of defective or unreasonably dangerous product. There are also times when products harm so many people that those victims join forces.

There were a number of mass tort lawsuits making their way through the courts in 2023. The following three are some of the most active and impactful.

Camp Lejeune lawsuit

The Camp Lejeune case is finally resulting in justice for many former servicemembers, their loved ones and others impacted by toxic water on the base for decades. In 2023, the Eastern District of North Carolina’s creation of a mini-MDL underscores the case’s significance. With over 110,000 administratively filed cases under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, the magnitude of this effort is evident.

The expectation of significant settlements in the future stems from the Department of Justice’s initiation of the CLJA early settlement program in September of the previous year. Early settlements are likely for the most compelling cases, as seen in the government’s recent settlement offer. However, for many victims, the litigation could extend for years due to debates over general causation.

Talcum powder lawsuit

Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder litigation remains among the largest class action lawsuits in the U.S. civil system at present. The allegation that prolonged exposure to talc, as found in products like baby powder, can cause cancer has led to over 53,000 pending cases. Johnson & Johnson’s desire to avoid settling many of these lawsuits by repeatedly trying to file for bankruptcy indicates a recognition of the need for a more substantial settlement amount to reach a global resolution.

With a substantial verdict against the company and ongoing individual case settlements, it is under pressure to find a feasible settlement that would be acceptable to a majority of the plaintiffs.

C.R. Bard hernia mesh lawsuit

The lawsuit against C.R. Bard concerning defective hernia mesh patches is another significant mass tort action. As of late 2023, over 20,000 plaintiffs had pending cases in this matter, and the number continues to grow. The increased activity underscores its significance in the mass tort landscape.

Plaintiff victories, including a $500,000 verdict in a bellwether trial, raise expectations for a potential global settlement. However, the protracted nature of this litigation suggests that resolution may not be straightforward.

Participants in these cases should ensure they’re properly represented. This can help to better ensure that they get the settlement they deserve.