S.F. trial for suit against blood thinner maker
Heart patients who say the anticlotting drug Plavix has caused internal bleeding, heart attacks and even deaths can sue manufacturer Bristol-Myers in San Francisco, even though the company and most of the plaintiffs are based in other states, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The 4-3 ruling, if the case is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, would allow a nationwide suit by 86 Californians and 592 residents of 33 other states to proceed in San Francisco Superior Court.
Plavix thins the blood to avoid clotting and is prescribed for patients who have suffered heart attacks or strokes. Potential side effects include bleeding and bruising, but government health agencies consider the drug safe if properly taken and monitored.
The lawsuit, however, alleges that Plavix increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes and that Bristol-Myers has failed to disclose those dangers while falsely promoting the drug’s safety. The plaintiffs say they have suffered internal bleeding and other damage, and additional heart attacks and strokes, and 18 of the cases were brought by relatives of patients who have died.
The case has been on hold while the opposing sides argue over whether it can be heard by a single court in California or by courts elsewhere, either a court in Bristol-Myers’ home state of
New York or multiple courts in the plaintiffs’ home states. Although courts would eventually apply the same set of laws to each plaintiff ’s claim — most likely the laws of the state where the drug was purchased — plaintiffs prefer a single case in a state such as California with lawyers and judges well versed in product liability cases, rather than taking their claims to courts in multiple states with varying approaches.
The ruling is “a huge win for consumers,” said attorney Sharon Arkin of Consumer Attorneys of California, which represents plaintiffs in injury cases.
In opposing a combined lawsuit in San Francisco, Bristol-Myers relied on a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring a suit in California by Argentines who accused the MercedesBenz auto company of colluding with the Argentine government to kidnap, torture and kill their relatives during the government’s campaign against dissidents in the 1970s and early 1980s. Although MercedesBenz had substantial sales in California, the high court said both the company and its parent firm, DaimlerChrysler, were headquartered elsewhere and neither had sufficient contacts with California to justify a suit.
But the California court said Monday that Bristol-Myers had sufficient contact with California: five research and laboratory offices, 250 salespeople, and Plavix sales of nearly $918 million between 2006 and 2012.
The company “has purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California, invoking the benefits and protection of its laws,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in the majority opinion. She also said the allegations of false advertising were based on nationwide activities that could be fairly judged in a single court rather than “scattershot” cases in multiple states.
Dissenting Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said that there was no direct connection between California and Plavix, at least for claims by out-of-state residents, and that the court majority was trying to sidestep the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision.
Bristol-Myers could appeal to the nation’s high court. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case is Bristol-Myers vs. Superior Court, S221038.