| Read Time: 9 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

What Kind of Cancers Does Zantac Cause?

The popular stomach acid and heartburn medication, Zantac, has been linked to a notable increase in cancer risk. In 2020, the FDA recalled ranitidine, the generic name for Zantac and other over-the-counter stomach acid-blocking drugs. However, by that time, millions of Americans had potentially been exposed to a deadly carcinogen. Today, Zantac class action lawsuit attorneys across the country are helping victims and their families pursue justice and fair financial compensation. At Gerling Law, our Zantac lawsuit attorneys assist victims in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and Nationwide. For more than 50 years, our firm has provided aggressive, highly personalized representation to injury accident victims. We believe that anyone who sustained harm due to the negligence or wrongful actions of a drug company deserves justice. You could be entitled to recover compensation for your medical treatment, lost wages, emotional trauma, and more. The Link Between Zantac and Cancer Ranitidine, used by millions of people around the world, has been sold under a variety of brand names as both a prescription and over-the-counter drug. Ranitidine in its original state is not believed to cause cancer. However, when the active ingredient of ranitidine breaks down, it releases a chemical compound known as N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). NDMA is a carcinogen. Ranitidine breaks down normally over time. When exposed to heat, however, the process occurs much more quickly. Consequently, if Zantac or another ranitidine drug was stored at a temperature much beyond room temperature, or if the product was exposed to high heat, the breakdown would occur much more rapidly. N-nitrosodimethylamine is an extremely toxic substance. In addition to forming in the degradation of ranitidine, NDMA also results from the breakdown of rocket fuel components and other industrial processes. It can be found as an ingredient in some types of pesticides. The World Health Organization (WHO) published information in 2008 that identified NDMA as a known carcinogen. The WHO’s toxicological review data looked at levels of NDMA found in drinking water sources around the world. No one expected to learn that this extremely toxic substance could be sitting in their own medicine cabinet, disguised as a popular and commonly used stomach acid reducing medication. What Is the Risk of Getting Cancer from Zantac? Initially, data indicated that cancer risks stemmed primarily from using ranitidine products that had been exposed to heat. More recent research, however, indicates that conditions within the human gastric tract could be sufficient to cause NDMA production. Research from 2016, wherein researchers monitored the levels of NDMA in the urine before and after taking ranitidine, supported this conclusion. Residual levels of the chemical increased more than 400-fold in the urine of those participants who took Zantac or another ranitidine drug. No solid data exist yet to prove how much more likely you are to develop cancer overall if you took Zantac. However, researchers believe that anyone who took a ranitidine product twice a week or more for a period of months or years could face an increased risk of getting cancer. The Types of Cancer Linked to Zantac Use Medical experts and research scientists continue to gather data on this developing problem. However, thus far, the list of cancers associated with ranitidine use continues to grow. These are some of the most common types of cancer caused by Zantac and ranitidine. Unfortunately, this list is in no way complete. It may be years or even decades before the medical and research communities can definitively list all the types of cancer that Zantac may have caused. Zantac and Breast Cancer Risk: Does Zantac Cause Breast Cancer? The link between ranitidine and breast cancer was one of the earliest discoveries about this drug. In 2008, a study examined the link between the use of histamine(2)-receptor antagonist (H(2) blocker) medications and breast cancer. Drugs falling into the H(2) blocker category include cimetidine, famotidine, and ranitidine. The study found no link between H(2) blockers and breast cancer in general. However, the link between ranitidine and breast cancer was significant. In fact, the use of ranitidine increased the risk of ductal carcinoma by 220% and of estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive ductal carcinoma by 240%. Despite this research having been performed in 2008, the drug manufacturers left Zantac and other ranitidine products on the market for almost 12 more years. Research also links a history of Zantac use to cases of breast cancer in men. This disease rarely strikes men. Consequently, men typically do not undergo regular breast cancer screening. Talk to your doctor if you took ranitidine and have concerns regarding Zantac-related male breast cancer. Zantac and Bladder Cancer Risk: Does Zantac Cause Bladder Cancer? For several years, researchers strongly suspected that a link between ranitidine use and bladder cancer existed. New studies have now demonstrated just how significant that risk might be. People who took the drug for three years or more faced a significantly higher risk of bladder cancer. However, even those who took Zantac for less than three years faced a 22% higher risk than people who never took the drug. Those who used it for three years or more have a 43% higher risk of developing bladder cancer. When detected early, bladder cancer treatment has a high rate of success. Learning the symptoms of bladder cancer—which include painful urination and blood in the urine—can help you better monitor your health. Talk to your doctor about what types of cancer screenings might be appropriate for you if you previously used Zantac or ranitidine drugs. Zantac and Uterine Cancer Risk: Does Zantac Cause Uterine Cancer? Uterine cancer, specifically endometrial cancer, already poses a significant risk for women in the U.S. Every year, almost 70,000 women receive a uterine cancer diagnosis. More than 12,000 American women die of uterine cancer every year. Even worse, experts estimate that the rate of uterine cancer cases is increasing by about 1% per year. This cancer is especially troubling, as it presents virtually no symptoms in the early stages. Although only observational human studies are possible today due to ethical reasons, multiple animal...

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 4 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

Should I Join the Zantac Lawsuit Against Sanofi?

The drug, Zantac, manufactured and distributed by Sanofi, is the subject of a great deal of recent public scrutiny and litigation. Zantac is said to have caused cancer in thousands of Americans who took the drug. As a result, the injured parties are pushing back. With the ongoing lawsuits against Sanofi regarding the prescription medication, many people who took the drug and suffered injuries are trying to decide if they should file a claim for damages—and how they should do so. If you are one of those people, the experienced professionals at Gerling Law Injury Attorneys can help you out. One of the primary questions that we get regarding Zantac injuries is, should I join the Zantac class action lawsuit? The answer to this question depends on the circumstances of your own case and your claim for damages. Class action lawsuits have their advantages and their disadvantages. To help you put some thought into which direction you want to take your claim in a Zantac cancer lawsuit, we put together this quick guide. Among other things, we will discuss potential Zantac lawsuit payouts, the pros and cons of joining a class action, and why the Zantac cancer lawsuits exist in the first place. If you are reading this article and think you have a claim, it is crucially important that you take legal action as soon as possible. The cutoff for the class action lawsuit is September 2021, and you don’t want to miss out. What Is Wrong With Zantac? Zantac is Sanofi’s trademarked name of the drug, ranitidine. Ranitidine medications were a common treatment for heartburn for quite some time. That is until concerns over cancer started to arise. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), requested that all manufacturers of ranitidine-based drugs withdraw their drugs from the market immediately. The FDA’s announcement came after an investigation into the drug and a specific contaminant contained therein. The FDA found dangerously high levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), the contaminant in question, in many ranitidine products. The unacceptable NDMA levels were particularly high in medications stored above room temperature. While the NDMA levels in ranitidine drugs stored at room temperature were lower than others, they were still unacceptable concentrations. The Harmful Effects of NDMA NDMA is a known cancer-causing agent (or carcinogen). Like many other carcinogens, it is present in many food and water sources. Generally, at such low levels, consumption of NDMA does not amount to a problem. However, the levels found in Zantac were far beyond an acceptable level. As a result of the high NDMA concentrations, countless individuals have developed cancer of various kinds. If you developed cancer after taking Zantac for more than a couple of months, you likely have a legitimate claim for damages from Sanofi. Class Action Lawsuits Generally speaking, class action lawsuits are a way to streamline litigation. When many claimants file similar claims against a given party, those claims are often consolidated into a single claim. The name “class action” stems from the fact that there is a defined group of people (a class) that can join the claim. If you meet the requirements for the “class” in a given class-action suit, you can join it and recover your share of the damages you suffered. The “class” in the Sanofi Zantac class-action lawsuit is anyone who can demonstrate that they: Took Zantac for a continuous period of one year or more; and Developed one of the following types of cancer after taking the drug: Colorectal cancer, Esophageal cancer, Liver cancer, Intestine cancer, Stomach cancer, Early-onset prostate cancer, Leukemia, or Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. If you meet the noted criteria but don’t see the specific type of cancer you developed in the list above, don’t worry. The provided list is not exhaustive, so other types of cancer may still meet the requirements to join the class action. Come talk to us at Gerling Law Injury Attorneys, and we will help you assess your individual situation. Pros and Cons of Class Actions Class actions have a lot of advantages, but they also have their own disadvantages. Thus, it is important to consider both options when deciding which direction you want to take your claim.  Perhaps the biggest advantage to class action lawsuits lies in their efficiency. Filing a legal claim through a class action lawsuit often costs significantly less than filing an individual civil claim. Your attorney has considerably less work to do when joining a class action claim than they do filing an individual claim for damages. Class actions, as a whole, are also more efficient in moving through the legal process than individual claims. Instead of a judge and jury having to decide 2,000 individual cases, they can judge just one case. While a class-action case will move slower than one individual claim, a class action will move through the court system faster than 2,000 individual claims. Finally, class actions offer claimants more of a guarantee of damage recovery than individual claims. This is because, in order for class action claims to move forward, they should have a fairly robust chance of success. The main drawback to class-action lawsuits is that there is little room for nuance in separating your case from the others. As a result, if you suffered severe damages, your share of the class action damages may not fully cover your damages. To this same end (and same disadvantage), when you accept compensation through a class-action lawsuit, any claim to future damages is null. If you battled cancer on and off for 10 years after taking Zantac, for example, your damages may far exceed that of a ‘typical’ class member. Thus, if you find yourself in such a situation, you may want to consider filing an individual claim. If you do, it is far more likely that your Zantac lawsuit payout will fully compensate you for your damages.   Regardless of What You Decide Whether or not you decide to join the Zantac class-action lawsuit, we at Gerling Law Injury Attorneys are...

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 2 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

Manufacturer Sanofi Destroys Emails Linked To Zantac Recall

May 11, 2021 — Manufacturer Sanofi destroyed internal emails linked to a 2019 recall of Zantac, according to lawyers for over 70,000 former patients who sued the company in the U.S. The deleted emails, including those of Michael Bailey, the head of regulatory affairs for Sanofi’s U.S. Consumer Healthcare division, will make it more challenging for plaintiffs to show that Sanofi and other drugmakers allowed a suspected carcinogen to affect Zantac, according to a May 7 court filing. The mishandling of emails has “resulted in the delay and/or postponement of many key Sanofi depositions,” lawyers for former patients reported. They have requested more time to prepare for their first trials from the judge overseeing their cases, which are set to start next year. Sanofi initiated an internal probe about the email deletion and is scheduled to report to the same judge in August 2021. “Although Sanofi has already provided hundreds of thousands of pages of relevant discovery to the plaintiffs, Sanofi has voluntarily disclosed that certain emails requested by plaintiffs were not preserved as intended,” Ashleigh Koss, a U.S. spokeswoman, stated in an email Tuesday. “There was no intentional destruction of data,” she said. “Sanofi is working to obtain as much of the data as possible from alternative sources. This issue has no impact on the strong defenses Sanofi has in this litigation, and the company remains fully confident in the safety of Zantac.” Though Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline Plc, and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, in addition to 33 generic drug makers, 25 retailers, and four distributors, are accused in the lawsuits of failing to properly warn users about Zantac’s health risks, only Sanofi has been accused in the filings of destroying emails. Former consumers have complained that GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH have been slow to give records during the pre-trial stage of the Zantac lawsuits, however.  Over 1,300 suits involving claims by more than 70,000 former Zantac users have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in Florida, making it one of the largest consolidations in the U.S. Rosenberg is overseeing information exchanges and early trials to test the merits of the claims against manufacturers. She has already thrown out some claims, including those saying Zantac was defectively designed.  The Zantac case is In Re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 20-MD-2924, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach). Plaintiffs’ attorneys want Rosenberg to create two class-action cases for former Zantac consumers. The first would be for cancer patients who endured economic losses linked to the medicine. The second would include those who haven’t been diagnosed with cancer and seek compensation for medical monitoring in the future. Reference:  “Sanofi Accused Of Destroying Internal Emails.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-11/sanofi-accused-of-destroying-internal-emails-about-zantac-recall

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Dangerous Drugs

Merck & Co Accused of Mislabeling Shingles Vaccine

A judge recently ruled that pharmaceutical company Merck & Co must release its email exchanges concerning its shingles vaccine, Zostavax. More than 1,800 lawsuits filed against Merck & Co combined into a multidistrict litigation, and the plaintiffs accuse the company of changing label information on their vaccine. Plaintiffs claim this caused them severe injuries. It has yet to be announced what information plaintiffs believe Merck & Co changed on the label. The judge ruled that nearly all of the documents in question should be released. Source: Reuters

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Dangerous Drugs

Johnson & Johnson Sued Over Retina Damaging Drug

Multiple lawsuits are outstanding against Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Pharmaceuticals after patients taking Elmiron developed permanent retinal injuries. Elmiron, which is used to treat interstitial cystitis,  is also known as pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS). Individuals currently taking Elmiron should obtain an eye examination. The pharmaceutical companies have yet to release a statement on the apparent connection between the drug and maculopathy.  Source: The National Law Review

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Dangerous Drugs

New Research Points to Relationship Between Elmiron and Vision-Threatening Disease

Nieraj Jain, MD., recently warned opthamologists of the link between a pentosan polysulfate sodium and a vision-threatening maculopathy. The drug, currently sold under the name Elmiron by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, can cause the maculopathy to appear to be age related. Dr. Jain’s research also indicates that the longer the Elmiron is used, the more likely it is to cause a vision-impairing issue. Opthamologists should closely monitor their patients that have been using Elmiron.  Source: Ophthalmology Times

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 3 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

Zantac Lawsuit Attorneys for Plaintiffs Who Have Taken Ranitidine (Generic Zantac) Use Recent Supreme Court Decision To Support Their Claim

May 5, 2021 — Plaintiffs in the Zantac multidistrict litigation are utilizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ford Motor Co v. Montana Eighth District. The March 25 decision in the Ford case held that state courts in Montana and Minnesota had jurisdiction over product liability claims against Ford despite the company not directly selling the defective vehicles in the states. Ford argued that in-state residents who were affected by crashes in Montana and Minnesota were not permitted to sue in their own state courts because Ford did not design, manufacture or sell the allegedly defective vehicles there. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Ford’s argument and ruled that, because Ford was very active in selling vehicles in the two states, Montana and Minnesota state courts had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ cases.  Justice Elena Kagan stated in the court’s majority opinion that plaintiffs only need to show a connection between their lawsuit and the defendant’s actions in their state.  Ford had argued that the plaintiffs needed to show that the defendant’s actions in their state had caused their injuries.  The decision is popular and has already been cited in 31 cases, mainly to clarify the jurisdiction issue. Zantac lawsuit lawyers for plaintiffs, specifically those who took a generic version of Zantac (ranitidine), are also seizing the opportunity to use the recent ruling to their advantage.  The plaintiffs have faced a similar jurisdictional challenge that the Ford plaintiffs battled in the states of California and Massachusetts.  They argued in a brief filed on April 23, 2021 in West Palm Beach, Florida that the “law has been entirely overruled by Ford,” referring specifically to the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals but-for rule. Both Massachusetts and California have “innovator liability” laws that allow people who have taken generic versions of a drug to claim that the drug’s originators misrepresented risks in the drug’s labels.  The supreme courts of both states allowed claims under the laws which resulted in 2017’s T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp in California and 2018’s Rafferty v. Merck & Co Inc in Massachusetts. Despite those laws seeming to favor the Zantac plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, the judge over the Zantac MDL, dismissed the plaintiffs’ innovator liability claims in December 2020 on jurisdictional grounds.  Rosenberg cited a 2018 precedent from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Waite v. All Acquisition Corp, stating that personal injury plaintiffs who are asserting specific jurisdiction are required to show that the defendant’s actions within the court’s home state directly led to the alleged injury.  The judge stated that the plaintiffs did not claim a causal link between their claims and the marketing activities in both California and Massachusetts by name-brand Zantac defendants. Judge Rosenberg allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint so that they could claim that the actions taken by the name-brand Zantac defendants in California and Massachusetts caused the plaintiffs to take the generic form of Zantac called ranitidine.  The new complaint explained that the marketing in the two states led to a higher demand for Zantac, and in turn caused higher sales of the generic version. On March 24, one day before the Supreme Court ruled on the Ford case, name-brand defendants Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Sanofi SA, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Patheon NV moved to dismiss the amended claim.  They argued that they did not affect the introduction of ranitidine into the marketplace.  In the defendant’s brief, they said, “In short, while California and Massachusetts may choose to adopt their own novel tort principles governing companies based there, due process forbids them from applying those laws extraterritorially to hold the out-of-state brand-name manufacturers liable for the sales of other companies’ products.”  They continued with, “Plaintiffs’ highly attenuated theory of liability leaves them with no basis for specific jurisdiction.” The plaintiffs argued the opposite.  They claimed that the Ford decision requires plaintiffs to show that a defendant conducted business within the jurisdiction and that the plaintiff’s lawsuit relates to the defendant’s actions within the jurisdiction. The plaintiffs said that there is no doubt that name-brand defendants were involved in marketing in California and Massachusetts.  According to the plaintiffs’ application of the Ford decision, the defendants did not need to directly sell ranitidine in order to relate to the plaintiffs’ claims and hold responsibility for the failure to warn about both Zantac and ranitidine’s carcinogenic risk. Reference:  Frankel, Alison. “Zantac Generics Plaintiffs Hope SCOTUS Ford Decision Rescues Claims against Brand-Name Makers.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 27 Apr. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-zantac-idUSKBN2CE2NX.

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Dangerous Drugs

Hundred of Cases Pending Against Drug After FDA Removes Box Warning

Although the FDA removed an amputation warning on Invokana’s box in 2020, the drug is still subject to active litigation. Although the amputation risk while taking the diabetes drug is lower than scientists initially thought, Invokana can still pose serious risks of developing Fournier’s Gangrene. Between 2013 and 2019, 21 cases of FG were reported among Invokana users. However, hundreds of Invokana-related lawsuits are pending in courts across the country. Source: Consumer Safety

Continue Reading

| Read Time: 4 minutes | Dangerous Drugs

Pretrial Orders

March 6, 2021 – There have been many pretrial orders entered over the past few months in the Zantac/Ranitidine Multi-District Litigation (MDL) as referenced below. This list will continue to be amended as new orders are entered. The orders can also be found here:  https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/zantac. March 2021  March 5:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 61 – Order on Second Round of Motions to Dismiss  February 2021  February 25:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 60 – Generic Manufacturer Defendant Supplemental Discovery Agreement  February 12:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 59 – Ninth Census Implementation Order: Further Timelines for Registry CPF Deficiency Processing and Other Procedures  January 2021  December 2020  December 31:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 58 – Eighth Census Implementation Order: Product Identification Collections for Remaining Filed Plaintiffs and Unfiled Registry Claimants by Retailer and Pharmacy Defendants  December 16:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 57 – Order Regarding Initial Discovery of Distributor Defendants  November 2020  November 23:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 56 – Seventh Census Implementation Order: Deficiency Process for Unfiled Claimants  November 23:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 55 – Sixth Census Implementation Order: Access to Unfiled Claimant Census Plus Forms for Non-Generic Defendants  November 11:  Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 54 – Deposition Protocol for Defendants’ Witnesses and Third Parties  October 2020  Oct. 21: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 53 – Fifth Census Implementation Order: Access to Census Plus Forms and Aggregated Data  Oct. 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 52 – Procedures for Dismissal of Defendants from the Master Complaints and the Individual Personal Injury Cases   Oct. 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 51 – Fourth Census Implementation Order: Product Identification Collections for Filed Cases by Retailer and Pharmacy Defendants   Oct. 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 50 – Third Census Implementation Order: Generic Manufacturer Production of Product Related Information   Oct. 5: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 49 – Order on Class Action Discovery Timelines   Oct. 5: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 48 – Remote Deposition Guidelines   Oct. 3: Zantac Lawsuit Amended MDL Pretrial Order # 47 – Document Discovery Schedule for Brand Manufacturers   September 2020  Sept. 29: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 46 – Order on Production of Defendant Discovery on Other Defendants   Sept. 29: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 45 – Order on Service of Discovery Requests and Responses  Sept. 25: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 44 – Order Authorizing Use of BrownGreer MDL Centrality Platform for Service of Short Form Complaints   Sept. 25: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 43 – Order Setting Forth Service of Process of Short Form Complaints on Generic, Distributor, Repackager, and Retailer Defendants   August 2020  Aug. 29: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 42 – Second Census Implementation Order: Temporary Census Plus Form Extension Due to Vendor Data Issue   Aug. 26: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 41 – Protocol For In Extremis Depositions   Aug. 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 40 – Protocol for Modifying Particular Defendants in the Master Complaints   Aug. 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 39 – Protocol for Voluntarily Dismissing Short-Form or Individual Long-Form Complaints in Their Entirety, for Dismissing Particular Claims, and/or for Dropping Particular Defendants   Aug. 16: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 38 – First Census Implementation Order  July 2020  July 31: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 37 – Protocol for Common Benefit Work and Expenses   July 30: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 36 – Order on Schedule for Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss   July 27: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 35 – Order Regarding Core Discovery of Retailer Defendants   July 13: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 34 – Order Regarding Initial Discovery of Generic Manufacturers   July 9: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 33 – Order Enumerating Additional Responsibilities of Generic Liaison Counsel   June 2020  June 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 32 – Order Concerning the Discovery Process and Dispute Resolution   June 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 31 – Procedures for Master Pleadings in Personal Injury Cases   June 18: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 30 – Stipulated Discovery and Case Management Schedule   June 11: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #29 – Protocol for ESI Discovery   June 11: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #28 – Preservation Order   June 3: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #27 – Order Regarding Deadline for Filing of Notice of Appearance   June 1: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #26 – Confidentiality Order   June 1: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #25 – Protocol for Treatment of Privileged and Work Product Materials   May 2020  May 28: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #24 – Order Relating to Initial Status Conference   May 27: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #23 – Order Modifying Census Plus Deadlines   May 22: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #22 – Order Establishing Defense Leadership Structure   May 14: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #21 – Order on Applications for Defense Leadership   May 8: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #20 – Order Appointing Leadership   April 2020  April 28: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #19 – Order Attaching Amended Appendix A    April 15: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order # 18 – Order on Production of Records for Initial Census for Deceased and Incapacitated Claimants   April 10: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #17 – Order Appointing Interim Retailer Liaison Counsel   April 3: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #16 – Order Rescheduling Initial Conference, Establishing April Deliverables Team, and Scheduling Interviews for Leadership Applicants  April 2: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #15 – Order on Procedures for Implementing Census   March 2020  March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #14 – Order Authorizing Continuation of Work by Interim Teams   March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #13 – Stipulated Order Setting Forth Service of Process Procedures on Certain Defendants   March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #12 – Stipulated Order Appointing Special Master   March 20: Zantac Lawsuit MDL Pretrial Order #11 – Stipulated Order...

Continue Reading

| Read Time: < 1 minute | Dangerous Drugs

Update On Status Of Generic Ranitidine Manufacturers’ and Retail Distributors’ Motion To Dismiss

March 6, 2021 – The Court has still not ruled on the motion to dismiss made by big-name distributors such as Walgreens and Walmart, but we are watching for the ruling and will update when it comes.  Reference: “United States District Court.” 20-MD-2924-Rosenberg – In Re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation | Southern District of Florida | United States District Court, 5 Mar. 2021, www.flsd.uscourts.gov/zantac.

Continue Reading