Fosamax / Boniva / Actonel Side Effects
Fosamax, Boniva, and Actonel are osteoporosis drugs which are part of a class of drugs known as bisphosphonates.
Fosamax, Boniva, and Actonel use has been associated with atypical stress fractures, or insufficiency fractures, of the femur / thigh bone.
While the medical articles about femur fractures in long-term users of these bisphosphonate osteoporosis drugs started getting published several years ago, many prescribing and treating doctors only learned about this femur fracture side effect in the past couple of years.
Recent Fosamax / Boniva / Actonel Drug Injury Law Case Reviews
Actonel / Boniva / Fosamax – Femur Fracture – 68 yr old woman
Boniva – Femur Fracture – 77 yr old woman
Boniva – Bilaateral Femur Fracture – 69 yr old woman
Boniva – Subtrochanteric Femur Fracture – 57 yr old woman
Fosamax / Boniva / Actonel – Femur Fractures, Bilateral – 80 yr old woman
Actonel – Femur Fracture – 67 yr old woman
Actonel – Bilateral Femur Fractures (3 months apart) – 55 yr old woman
Boniva – Femur Fracture – 63 yr old woman
Fosamax – Femur Fracture – 62 yr old woman
Fosamax / Boniva – Stress Fractures in Both Femurs – 75 yr old woman
The information you provide to us for this Free Case Evaluation will be treated as strictly confidential. You will get a reply from us no later than the next business day. Submitting a case evaluation does not obligate you to hire our law firm for your lawsuit. We handle all cases on a contingency fee basis, which means that you will make no payment for our legal services until after we have succeeded in getting legal compensation for you.
Drug Injury Watch: Fosamax / Boniva / Actonel Legal & Medical Information
UPDATE: On March 22, 2017 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal by U.S. District Court Joel Pisano of all the pending federal court Fosamax – femur fracture cases nationwide on federal preemption grounds. The Third Circuit significantly held that the ultimate question of whether the FDA would have rejected a Fosamax label change by Merck for the increased risk of femur fractures is a question of fact for the jury, rather than for the court, to decide.
A recent ruling on the long-pending appeals in the so-called federal court Fosamax MDL — In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation — is a positive development for the patients who suffered femur fractures after long-term Fosamax use and filed drug injury lawsuits against Merck.
On March 22, 2017 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Court Joel Pisano which had dismissed all the federal court Fosamax – femur fracture cases on federal preemption grounds. By means of this appellate court decision, hundreds of those Fosamax lawsuits have now been reinstated at the trial court level.
From a March 22, 2017 Reuters news report, “Merck must face renewed Fosamax warning claims: U.S. appeals court”, we get these basic facts about this recent appellate decision in the Fosamax – femur fracture MDL litigation:
In a 3-0 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said the plaintiffs may proceed to trial on their failure-to-warn claims, and a lower court judge erred in finding the claims pre-empted by federal law….
[In dismissing the Fosamax lawsuits, U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano] cited a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision that state law-based failure-to-warn claims were pre-empted when there was “clear evidence” that the FDA would not have approved a warning that plaintiffs requested.
Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes found enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the FDA would have approved “a properly-worded warning” about Fosamax, “or at the very least, to conclude that the odds of FDA rejection were less than highly probable.”
Fuentes said a jury could also find that some doctors would not have prescribed Fosamax had Merck discussed the risk of fractures on a warning label.
Essentially, the Third Circuit held that the ultimate question of whether the FDA would have rejected a Fosamax label change by Merck to warn about an increased risk of femur fractures is a question of fact for the jury (and not Judge Pisano) to decide.
However, this is just a first step in terms of the Fosamax – femur fracture litigation moving forward. Significantly, at the present time we do not know Merck’s plans regarding any further appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Once the further appeal issue is resolved, we will have a better idea about what comes next for the many femur fracture lawsuits which are part of this Fosamax MDL.
[Read this article in full at original source]
Earlier Fosamax / Boniva / Actonel articles by Tom Lamb on the Drug Injury Watch blog:
- Arguments Made To Appeals Court In Fosamax – Femur Fracture Litigation
- Merck Fosamax – Femur Fracture Lawsuits Wait For Appeals Court Rulings
- Fosamax – Femur Fracture Lawsuits Update: California Verdict For Merck In April 2015 With Two More California Trials Scheduled For July 2015 And October 2015
- First 2015 Update On Fosamax Femur Fracture Litigation: Not Much New Information To Report Out
- December 2014 Fosamax – Femur Fracture Litigation Update: In The Fosamax Federal Court MDL There Are Dismissals, Appeals, And Court-Ordered Mediations
- End Of Summer 2014 Update: Fosamax – Femur Fracture Lawsuits In The New Jersey Consolidation / Multicounty Litigation
- June 2014 Fosamax – Femur Fracture Litigation Update: Thousands Of Cases Pending, But No Trial Dates Currently Scheduled In Federal Court MDL Nor New Jersey Multicounty Litigation
- Merck Faces More Than 4100 Fosamax – Femur Fracture Lawsuits As Of September 30, 2013 According To SEC Corporate Filing
- Fosamax – Femur Fracture Lawsuits Filed Against Merck Said To Total 3,940 As Of June 30, 2013
- Second Fosamax – Femur Fracture Lawsuit Trial Starts In New Jersey, This One In The Federal Court MDL With Judge Pisano Presiding
- March 2013 Fosamax Product Liability Litigation Update: Femur Fracture Cases Against Merck
- First Fosamax – Femur Fracture Trial In New Jersey State Court Scheduled To Start March 4, 2013
- Should Merck Have Known And Warned About Fosamax Side Effects Involving The Jaw And Femur Bone Problems Starting When This Drug Was First Put On Market In 1995
- Atypical Femur Fractures: Due To Fosamax Or A Bisphosphonates Drug Class Side Effect?
- Fosamax And Femur Fractures: Two New 2012 Medical Journal Articles Go From One Diagnosis To Many Long-Term Outcomes Of Patients
- Intramedullary Nailing Surgery Is Successful Treatment For Patients With Femur Fractures From Use Of Fosamax Or Other Bisphosphonates
- Subtrochanteric Femoral Fractures With Use Of Oral Bisphosphonates: Fosamax, Actonel, And Boniva
- Fosamax Femur Fractures: Many Impending Cases Go Unrecognized By Doctors And Radiologists Due To Subtle Characteristics
- New Australian Study Supports An Apparent Association Between Long-Term Fosamax Use And Certain Types Of Femur Fractures
- Risk Of Femur Fractures From Osteoporosis Drugs Fosamax, Boniva, Actonel, And Reclast Related To Number Of Years Used
- Women Who Use Bisphosphonates Like Fosamax And Boniva Have Increased Risk Of Femur Fracture / Thigh Bone Breaks
- How One Might Determine Whether The Femur Fracture Is Related To A Bisphosphonate Such As Fosamax
- September 2011: Two FDA Advisory Committees Will Discuss The Safety Of Long-Term Use Of Fosamax, Boniva, And Actonel
- Thigh Bone Leg Fractures In Older Women Using Fosamax, Boniva, And Reclast For Five Years Or More
- Bisphosphonates Such As Fosamax And Femur Fractures: Some Recent 2009 Medical Journal Articles
- Case Report Of Bilateral Femur Fractures In Patient Using Fosamax
- More About A “New” Fosamax Bone Side Effect, Leg Fractures In Region Of Thigh Or Femur
- Association Between Long Term Fosamax Use And Femoral Stress Fracture Is Challenged
- New York Doctors Find One Type Of Femoral Stress Fracture Is Possible Fosamax Side Effect
All content by attorney Tom Lamb