Norplant Lawsuit

law

What is a Norplant lawsuit? It is a lawsuit against a company that developed the now-ubiquitous Norplant painkiller. For quite some time, the Norplant manufacturers knew that their product was filled with undeclared drugs and it was obvious to anyone who ever used the product that there were definite side effects with Norplant such as anxiety, headaches, cramps and numbness. When the Norplant lawsuit was filed in 2021, plaintiffs’ lawyers got an agreement from the defendant that they would make changes to their product in order to fix these problems. Some changes included the addition of a warning on the container about potential side effects and that information should be posted in every location where Norplant is sold. Some plaintiffs’ lawyers got a deal so that they would not pursue their case further and that they would only receive a settlement if the manufacturer agreed to change the way that their product functions.

Norplant Lawsuit

Why did the Norplant lawsuit type lawsuit occur then? There are actually a few different reasons. One of them is that the Food and Drug Administration did not approve Norplant as a prescription drug in the first place. A lawsuit was filed against the manufacturer of Norplant by the U.S. pharmaceutical giant, J.D. Powers and Associates, which did not want the drug added to the category of prescription drugs called “FDA regulated” drugs because of the possibility of its re-registration, which could result in lost profits. They also claimed that the FDA failed to test Norplant for safety and efficacy before approving it.

This lawsuit was filed because the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, was allergic to the chemical propylene glycol, used in the manufacturing process of the Norplant.

He suffered from severe asthma attacks, chest pains and coughing fits when he was exposed to the chemical during his employment. The Norplant lawsuit was filed against the company, C.H. Poole, which is an authority in the manufacturing of dental devices. The complaint named the various other corporations and officers of the company as well, but only C.H. Poole & Son, a direct manufacturer of Norplant, were sued.

The Norplant lawsuit claims that they had conducted tests on animals which showed that the chemical caused kidney failure, liver failure and other ailments.

The Norplant lawsuit further claims that they had conducted studies with regard to the effects of Norplant on an entire city’s population. The Norplant lawsuit further claims that the plaintiffs were told numerous times by their physicians that they would not suffer from these ailments if they took the drug, nor were they told that taking any such drug would have serious side effects on their health. Many of these plaintiffs suffer from chronic ailments due to their reliance on Norplant, including chronic allergies to animal proteins, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, etc. Some plaintiffs have had to abandon their lives’ work to avoid ingesting Norplant.

The Norplant lawsuit targets three specific defendants only; C.H. Poole & Son, Inc., which is responsible for the research and development of Norplant, defendants Metrex Industries and Merck Pharmaceuticals which are responsible for marketing the Norplant drug, as well as defendant’s Sharp Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline and Jansmark Corporation. In addition, it targets what it deems as a ‘defendant-manufacturer’ entity, i.e. Shandong Chemical Company.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit claims that these three companies individually and collectively knew or should have known that their product was dangerous for human consumption.

The lawsuit further claims that defendants failed to warn the plaintiffs of the risks associated with their drug or that they failed to properly warn the plaintiffs that Norplant was a dangerous drug. Plaintiffs further claim that defendants failed to take reasonable steps to warn them that Norplant was a drug that could cause harm, and/or that they failed to make any warnings about the potential hazards of using Norplant. Plaintiffs further claim that defendants failed to fix liability issues related to Norplant and did not make adequate remedies for their conduct.

3 thoughts on “Norplant Lawsuit

  1. I had noplant in 1991, after my second child, I couldn’t stand it, I had it removed a year latter, and that was very painful, it felt like the Dr was pulling my nerves out of my arm! Is there anyway I can get involved with this lawsuit?

  2. I received the Norplant when I was 18 years old in 1993 and I had it removed three and some months later. My periods for the last 5-6 months , nausea, headaches vomiting. The blood clots are disgusting. Sorry for that info. I get two a month it’s really bad all the same symptoms that all these other women were talking about made me take an interest in your Law firm you guys seem to have a lot of information on it. I don’t know if there’s anything that I can do now as far as the lawsuit I really hope so because this is just been such a detriment to my life. I don’t even know what the next step would be if you have any information that would help me I’d really appreciate it .

  3. I also had the norplant in 1992 to 1995 it was a medical emergency to get it removed I have liver. Problems bone aches I bled the entire time and have had lumps in both breaststroke along with headaches lack of energy and big scars it was painful having removed and my menstrual cycle was never the same I wS always anemis through out the years I had n attorney call me and never heard back as far as compensation for hospital bills pain and suffering and scarring or medical issues can anyone help me or help me find out if I am owed money

Leave a Reply

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