The Topamax Lawsuit and Its After Effects

As you probably know, the pharmaceutical company from which you or your doctor had been prescribed the medicine, called Topamax, was one of the major players in the world of “toxicology”. In other words, they developed and manufacture a powerful antineoplastic drug, which they market as “Imuran” and “Plaquenil”. The company’s aggressive marketing of their product resulted in many doctors prescribing it to thousands of patients with medical problems like low birth weight, urinary tract infections, impotence, and sex-induced diseases among others. But what few people realize is that they were just profiting from the medical negligence of thousands of patients, while putting them at risk of injury or even death.

The short answer to the question posed in the title is no, but the answer isn’t so simple.

Topamax lawsuits will be on the rise in light of recent studies linking certain birth defects, specifically cleft lip, cleft palate, and similar birth defects to Topamax usage by pregnant women. Although the list of causal factors is quite long, these studies have highlighted the increasing frequency of these unfortunate results from taking this popular medication. Lawyers who file such lawsuits take this chance to press charges against the company, who they feel is liable for negligence regarding the safety of a medication that was never intended to cause such adverse events.

To date, the company has already been reprimanded numerous times, and they’ve agreed to significant fines in order to appease state authorities.

However, the fact remains that this popular medication may cause further harm to some babies born to women using it, and that could only mean more lawsuits. In fact, it is believed that the numbers of infant deaths associated with Topamax may exceed the number of infant deaths occurring due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. It’s a sobering thought, considering the fact that among the many other prescription medications available, this one is the only one that is specifically intended to be used to treat certain birth defects.

So, why is there a need for such a lawsuit? It’s not really so much about the financial aspect of compensation, but more about the damage caused to the family of the child as a result of the misdeeds of the manufacturer.

If you’ve lost a loved one to a drug reaction or to one of its serious side effects, then you know that the mere threat of such an event could very well bring about a devastating loss to the plaintiff’s family. And although the jury awarded a fairly substantial amount to the plaintiff’s attorney, it is understood that the payout will probably not be enough to cover the significant losses caused by the toxicity of the drug. This is why the threat of a lawsuit has been issued, in order to ensure that the manufacturers live up to their end of the bargain – which was to provide the best medication to treat SIDS, with the least possible harmful side effects.

So, what are the claims being made in the Topamax lawsuit? The plaintiffs argue that the manufacturer knew about the danger of the drug, yet sold it to the public anyway.

They further claim that they were subjected to unnecessary and harmful side effects when taking the drug, which, in turn resulted in the death of their baby. The company maintains that all of the plaintiffs are somehow involved in the case simply because they are related to the deceased baby. This, they insist, is merely an attempt to distract the jury from the real issue at hand: the safety of a product designed to treat a problem that many other products have failed to successfully address. This is indeed a disturbing trend, to say the least, especially when you consider the 4 million deaths recorded in the United States every year.

It appears that one of the most compelling arguments put forth in the Topamax lawsuit is that it is a case of first impression for the jury.

The plaintiffs are insisting that they deserve some sort of compensation due to the fact that they were exposed to harmful side effects. On the other hand, the company asserts that they are relatively minor in terms of health risk and were unable to determine the real extent of the problem. When both sides are presenting their case, it is important to remember that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Whether or not the plaintiffs receive any damages is contingent on the evidence presented during trial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *