A unanimous Supreme Court has blocked, for now, a large multi-party lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Merck over "atypical femoral fractures" caused by osteoporosis drug Fosamax. As health tech flourished, Teladoc and Livongo saw an…

Supreme Court gives Merck another shot to avoid Fosamax lawsuits. Reprints.

By Andrew Chung, Reuters • January 7, 2019. 0 2,013. But the FDA has ultimate authority to approve or reject the wording that appears on drug labels.In a 2008 application to the FDA, Merck proposed revising the warning language for Fosamax, describing a heightened risk of "stress fractures. Fosamax drug manufacturer Merck & Company is now facing thousands of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs who suffered serious side effects. But it may increase the risk of fractures in the thigh bone or just below the hip joint, often requiring surgical intervention.Sales of Fosamax, also available as a generic drug, totaled $209 million in 2018, according to Merck.The New Jersey-based company in 2008 submitted data to the FDA suggesting Fosamax might be linked to certain bone fractures, but the FDA denied its warning label proposal. The current MDL involving Bard Davol is in its earliest stages, and a trial date has not been set. Fosamax Lawsuit. The US Supreme Court vacated and remanded a products liability case involving claims alleging a failure to warn about risks of stress fractures related to the use of Fosamax, which is manufactured by Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”). Lower courts now must revisit the case reflecting the Supreme Court’s guidance.Merck’s shares traded up slightly on Monday morning, at $78.91.Fosamax helps prevent and treat osteoporosis, a condition that can lead to bone fractures, in women who have gone through menopause.

These lawsuits are at the heart of a case, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Doris Albrecht, et al., that will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 7, 2019. advertisement Andrew Chung.

2243 in the District Court of New Jersey, Trenton Division; Multicounty Litigation Case No. After a task force further studied the issue, the FDA in 2010 ordered manufacturers to revise labels to include a warning, which Merck did.The plaintiffs contend that the FDA rejected only Merck’s proposed language for the warning that focused on relatively minor stress fractures rather than the more serious fractures they suffered.Fosamax users sued Merck in federal courts alleging the drug caused them to sustain serious thigh bone fractures and that the company failed to warn of the risk. AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine study put on hold due to…

… Casma Therapeutics brings in another $50 million to target muscular dystrophy District Court Upholds Hospital Price Transparency Rule Thus, since the Court of Appeals incorrectly treated the pre-emption question as one of fact, the justices vacated and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further proceedings.Thomas Sullivan is Editor of Policy and Medicine, President of Rockpointe Corporation, founded in 1995 to provide continuing medical education to healthcare professionals around the world. More than 500 Fosamax users from 45 states contend the company failed to warn them or their doctors of the danger, "When the FDA exercises this authority, it makes careful judgments about what warnings should appear on a drug's label for the safety of consumers," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's opinion. 4 Min Read. J. Scott Applewhite/AP. If you have suffered a Fosamax femur fracture, the Fosamax attorneys of Seeger Weiss LLP may be able to help you file a Fosamax class action lawsuit.

By Andrew Chung | The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Merck & Co – at least for now – by throwing out a lower court ruling that had revived hundreds of lawsuits accusing the … Novartis and Roche are fined $528 million for anti-competitive… By Andrew Chung, Reuters • May 20, 2019 * FDA rebuffed Merck's bid to add fracture risk warning * Lower courts to revisit case using Supreme Court guidance (Recasts first paragraph, adds comment from Merck and plaintiffs, details from ruling) By Andrew Chung.