free web stats

Fosamax, Boniva, And Actonel Have Been Associated With Atypical Or Low Stress Femur Fractures

 

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

______________________________________________________________

Free Fosamax / Boniva / Actonel Case Evaluation

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.

(3/23/17)


 

Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal Of Fosamax – Femur Fracture Lawsuits

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:

___________________________________________________________________________

Fosamax / Boniva / Actonel Drug Injury Case Evaluation >>

___________________________________________________________________________

All content by attorney Tom Lamb

Law Offices of Thomas J. Lamb, P.A.
1908 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
Wilmington, NC 28403
(800) 426-9535
ThomasJLamb@DrugInjuryLaw.com
Disclaimer and Copyright