Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Products Litigation

At Friday, Eldredge & Clark, we represent a number of pharmaceutical and medical device companies in product liability cases, often serving as regional coordinating counsel.

We have represented several pharmaceutical and product manufacturers, manufacturers and developers in cases involving: 

  • Hormone therapy
  • DPT vaccine
  • Oral contraceptives
  • Intrauterine devices
  • Tampons
  • Breast implants
  • Biologic, biomaterial, and device systems for musculoskeletal surgery and breast implants
  • Trauma
  • Spine Fusion

Representative Trials: 

  • Local Counsel for Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiaries in the multi-district litigation In Re: Prempro Products Liability Litigation, U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Arkansas, Case No. 4:03-cv-1507WRW.
  • Scroggin v. Wyeth et al., U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Arkansas, Case No. 4:04-cv-01169WRW; (failure to adequately warn of the increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT; verdict in favor of plaintiff motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages granted; appeal pending with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Rush v. Wyeth et al., U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Arkansas, Case No. 4:05-cv-00497WRW; counsel for Pharmacia & Upjohn Company; claim of breast cancer caused by use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT); summary judgment for Pfizer defendants on statute of limitation grounds.
  • West v. GD Searle Co. 317 Ark. 525, 879 SW 2d 412 (1994), summary judgment for defendant GD Searle Co.; Arkansas Supreme Court’s adoption of comment k to Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts and application of learned intermediary doctrine to oral contraceptives.
  • Hill v. Searle, 844 F.2d 1064 (8th Cir. 1989); represented Searle Laboratories; failure to warn claim involving intrauterine device (CU7); verdict in favor of the plaintiff, $10,000.00; no appeal taken.
  • Adkinson v. GD Searle & Co., 92 F.2d (8th Cir. 1992); trial counsel for GD Searle, summary judgment granted on statute of limitations based on when the plaintiff was aware of the probable connection between the product, intrauterine device (CU-7), and her injury; affirmed on appeal.