In August 2017, the third Xarelto bellwether trial concluded in the U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi. The jury sided with the drug manufacturers, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson. This was the third win for the defense in the consolidated federal proceedings.
The plaintiff in that trial, Dora Mingo, however, has filed a motion seeking a retrial, based on the results of a new study co-authored by Bayer scientists that was released during her trial. The plaintiff says that the findings from this study directly contradict Bayer’s testimony at her trial.
Plaintiff Argues that Xarelto Manufacturers Should Have Done More
The plaintiff is a retired schoolteacher from Mississippi, who started taking Xarelto in January 2015 to treat her deep vein thrombosis (DVT). While taking the blood-thinning drug, she developed gastrointestinal bleeding and had to be hospitalized.
The plaintiff blamed Xarelto for the bleeding, and sought to hold the manufacturers liable for failing to adequately warn patients and doctors about the drug’s risk. Bayer countered by maintaining that their warnings about bleeding were sufficient.
The plaintiff argued that a Prothrombin Time (PT) Neoplastin test, which doctors use to assess a patient’s bleeding risks, could have prevented her injuries. The plaintiff presented evidence that the Xarelto manufacturers should have told doctors to use this test, but failed to do so. The defendants argued that the test wasn’t scientifically reliable.
Plaintiff Claims New Study Contradicts Defendants’ Testimony
Now, the plaintiff states that a recent study co-authored by leading Bayer scientists supports her position. This study reportedly suggests that the PT test can be used for detecting excessive bleeding in patients using Xarelto.
Researchers in the study compared the blood-thinning effects of Xarelto (rivaroxaban) and Eliquis (apixaban). They also examined measures of the effectiveness of the drugs, including the use of the PT test. The researchers concluded that the PT test “can be used to estimate the anticoagulant effects of rivaroxaban,” directly countering Bayer’s testimony at trial that the test was unreliable.
The plaintiff notes that the study was released just as her trial was concluding. She asserts, however, that the study conclusions “would have probably resulted in a different outcome at trial,” because the evidence “renders testimony of the Defendants’ expert witnesses as misleading to the jury and supports the Plaintiffs’ position….”
The Xarelto product label states that the effects of the drug “cannot be monitored with standard laboratory testing,” another statement that is contradicted by the results of this study. The plaintiff states, “Defendants’ own scientists currently agree with Plaintiff’s position that Neoplastin PT can be used to assess Xarelto’s anticoagulant effect in patients.”
“Defendants were telling the Court and the jury,” the plaintiff states in her motion for retrial, “that PT is dangerous, useless, and meaningless, while simultaneously saying something completely different in the medical literature.”
Plaintiff Has Additional Reasons for Xarelto Retrial
In her motion for retrial, the plaintiff states that the new study is not the only reason that a new trial is warranted. Rather, she asserts that she is entitled to a new trial because “[s]everal errors addressing evidentiary rulings and instructions to the jury” occurred that were prejudicial to her trial.
Exclusively focused on representing plaintiffs—especially in mass tort litigation—Roopal Luhana prides herself on providing unsurpassed professional legal services in pursuit of the specific goals of her clients and their families. While she handles complex cases nationwide on behalf of consumers, Ms. Luhana resides with her family in Brooklyn, New York.