New York Court Allows Pradaxa-related Malpractice Lawsuit to Proceed

Defective drug injuries are often difficult to diagnose. After all, most of us do not have advanced medical degrees. We rely on doctors to tell us when there is something wrong and identify the potential causes. And when a doctor’s misdiagnosis or malpractice further compounds the problem, he or she may be liable for any injuries sustained by the innocent patient.

For example, there has been a notable increase in claims arising from the improper prescription of Pradaxa, a blood thinner commonly used to protect against potentially fatal blood clots. Unfortunately, Pradaxa can also lead to uncontrolled severe bleeding, especially when combined with other prescription medications. This is why doctors who prescribe Pradaxa have a legal and ethical duty to carefully monitor their patients to ensure none of these potentially deadly side effects develop.

Doctor’s “Failure to Monitor” Started Clock on Statute of Limitations

Recently, a New York State appeals court reinstated a medical malpractice claim brought by a Buffalo, N.Y., woman who developed a serious ulcer after taking a combination of Pradaxa and other drugs at the direction of her cardiologist. The plaintiff previously suffered from an abnormal heart rhythm and related health problems that put at her high risk of developing blood clots.

According to the plaintiff, on January 2, 2013, he was suffering from shortness of breath, which he reported to the cardiologist. The doctor opted not to make any changes to the plaintiff’s medication at that time. Two weeks later, on January 16, the plaintiff required emergency hospitalization for “severe blood loss” due to uncontrolled bleeding, which he attributed to the combination of Pradaxa and other drugs in her system.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice claim against the cardiologist and his practice group. New York State has a two-and-a-half-year statute of limitations for malpractice claims. The plaintiff filed his lawsuit in July 2015, which was within that period, at least counting from the date of the January 2, 2013, office visit, when the alleged misdiagnosis occurred. The defendants countered the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff was first prescribed Pradaxa, which was in 2011, more than four years prior to his lawsuit.

Although a New York trial court agreed with the defendant’s reasoning, an intermediate appeals court reversed in favor of the plaintiff. The appeals court noted the alleged negligence case was not in the initial decision to prescribe Pradaxa, but rather the defendants’ failure to monitor the plaintiff’s condition after he presented with complaints in January 2013. On that basis, the plaintiff could proceed with his lawsuit.

Speak With a Clinton Pradaxa Lawyer Today

Medical malpractice and product liability claims are subject to a complicated web of statutes of limitations, which vary depending on the state and the nature of the claim. This is why it is critical to speak with a Clinton defective drugs lawyer as soon as you suspect that Pradaxa, or any other drug or medical procedure, has caused you harm. Contact the offices of Fox, Farley, Willis & Burnette, Attorneys at Law, to schedule a consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer today.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15901605434329352214