California judge boosts plaintiffs’ cases against Bayer’s Essure birth control device

Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, CA.

A judge in Oakland, CA, ruled in favor of plaintiffs suing Bayer over its Essure birth control device by granting a motion that coordinates 55 cases currently pending in the state.

Under the pretrial motion approved Friday, attorneys for the plaintiffs in each case can now pool their resources in their claims the pharma giant failed to warn women about the dangers of the Essure birth control implant. The suits involve about 900 women.

Back in August, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith rejected arguments by Bayer attorneys that certain claims against Essure were preempted under federal law and barred by the statute of limitation. Smith is presiding over more than half the cases in California.

Event

Join the world's top medtech executives virtually for the leading event in medtech — The Virtual MedTech Conference by AdvaMed

Expect the same high-quality education, world-class speakers and valuable business development in a virtual format. Experience more of the conference with on demand content and partnering, as well as livestreamed sessions.

The judge told the courtroom that combining the cases made sense as they all had common aspects and it would conserve court resources, The Recorder reported.

The suits claim Bayer’s Essure, an FDA-approved medical device that has been on the market since 2002, caused a number of problems and physical injuries in thousands of women who have had the device implanted.

Earlier this year, the FDA slapped a black box warning on the device, indicating extreme risks and possible serious injuries associated with its usage. The regulatory agency also told Bayer to conduct more postmarket studies of the device's safety.

The ruling, however, sets up a likely appeals battle by Bayer attorneys, as many of the cases filed in California involve plaintiffs outside the state. That fight could center on the extension of a ruling in August by the California Supreme Court that broadened the right to sue for those injured outside of California by companies doing business nationwide. That case involved Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Plavix blood thinner.

“Having these cases coordinated before a single judge will avoid inconsistent rulings and allow these women to prosecute their claims in a cohesive and unified manner,” Elizabeth Graham, the plaintiffs’ counsel who argued for the case coordination before Judge Smith, said in a statement.

That complaint was skewered by Bayer attorney Maja Eaton of Sidley Austin. "I think it's really a novel argument that coordination should be ordered simply because plaintiffs' attorneys are finding it difficult to communicate with each other," Eaton told The Recorder.

Suggested Articles

J&J's EGFR-fighting combo stopped tumor growth in 60% of patients whose lung cancer got worse after taking AstraZeneca's Tagrisso.

Amgen's KRAS inhibitor curbed tumor growth in 88% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer, shrinking tumors in one-third of them.

The trial squeezed under the bar for statistical significance by improving on the median progression-free survival of Zytiga by two months.