WILMINGTON, Del. — The ongoing product liability litigation over AstraZeneca’s antipsychotic drug Seroquel has seen a troubling trend emerge for plaintiffs. A Delaware state court judge dismissed a case on June 9, marking the third such dismissal linked to the drug. The judge determined that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate expert medical testimony to demonstrate a connection between Seroquel and her health issues. The following day, a fourth case was dismissed at the plaintiff’s request.
These dismissals come amid a larger pattern of adverse rulings in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning Seroquel. Thousands of plaintiffs assert that the medication has led to severe health issues, including diabetes. Earlier in the litigation, Orlando federal district court Judge Anne Conway granted summary judgment in favor of AstraZeneca during the first test case in January. The ruling centered on diabetic plaintiff Linda Guinn, who could not sufficiently establish causation. A second case was similarly dismissed in February after plaintiff David Haller presented an insufficient argument.
The recent rulings have raised questions about the prospects of the Seroquel litigation. Judge Joseph Slights of the Delaware Superior Court noted the repeated exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert testimonies, shedding light on the significant hurdles facing these cases. Each time the litigation has reached a summary judgment stage, plaintiffs have struggled to establish a clear link between Seroquel and diabetes, leading to a lack of evidence that judges require for trials.
In his remarks, Judge Slights expressed concerns about the future of over 700 remaining Seroquel cases, where trial preparations are ongoing and resources are heavily invested. “Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to wonder aloud,” he noted, indicating uncertainty about the viability of the remaining claims.
AstraZeneca has enlisted the law firm Dechert to coordinate its defense in the Seroquel litigation. Partner Steven Weisburd has successfully argued motions in multiple dismissals, while the company also retains representation from firms including McCarter & English and Alston & Bird. On the plaintiffs’ side, Delaware’s Nina Scaife was represented by a trio of attorneys from notable law firms.
The dismissals and trends in the litigation raise alarm for plaintiffs’ attorneys involved in the mass tort. As more cases are challenged successfully in court, it could suggest a grim outlook for those pursuing claims against AstraZeneca regarding Seroquel.
The article was automatically written by OpenAI, and the information presented may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.