There is general consensus in the legal community that the FDA’s request for a market withdrawal of propoxyphene, along with studies that strongly suggest the drug can cause potentially fatal heart rhythm abnormalities, will lead to thousands of lawsuits against manufacturers such as Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals (maker of Darvon and Darvocet). Unclear, however, is whether attorneys will be able to prove that propoxyphene was the actual cause of plaintiffs’ injuries.
Consider the case of Kristine Esposito (mentioned in a previous post). In December 2010, the 31-year-old Queens, New York woman began a lawsuit against Xanodyne, claiming that the drug had caused her to suffer a near-fatal cardiac arrhythmia. Esposito’s lawyers are arguing that something called QT prolongation is a “signature” injury that is caused by relatively few drugs, including propoxyphene and several others. (A patient suffering from this condition experiences a lengthened time between the Q and T waves, two of the five types of electrical impulses that measure heartbeat regularity.)
Existing scientific literature shows a strong link between propoxyphene and heart rhythm abnormalities such as arrhythmia, even in healthy patients at recommended doses. But realistically, the relationship between propoxyphene and QT elongation can only be construed as “general” causation, which means that the substance is capable of producing that adverse effect. Certainly propoxyphene can cause dangerous cardiac events such as arrhythmia and heart attack. Specific causation (that is, whether propoxyphene actually caused the adverse event), on the other hand, will be much more difficult to prove, and could serve as a major hurdle for plaintiff success in a Darvon lawsuit. To show specific causation, attorneys will need to gather persuasive proof that propoxyphene, in fact, caused a plaintiff’s heart injury.
This may be a difficult task for patients who suffered from a pre-existing heart condition, were subject to other heart disease risk factors, or were longtime Darvon or Darvocet users who took more propoxyphene than they should have. Conversely, a young, healthy patient with no preexisting heart condition who took the drug for a relatively short period of time, a plaintiff such as Esposito, probably stands the best possible chance of establishing propoxyphene as the specific cause of his or her injury (and obtaining substantial Darvocet compensation).
As Esposito’s Darvocet lawsuit and others go to trial, it will become clearer what type of propoxyphene injuries are likely to result in compensation. Until that time, if you have any suspicion whatsoever that your cardiac problem was caused by propoxyphene, you should speak with an attorney. The Rottenstein Law Group, a firm with more than 25 years of product liability experience, is currently evaluating Darvon and Darvocet claims. By contacting one of our experienced lawyers, you can obtain answers to your questions and guidance about what to do next. By seeking legal counsel now, you will be prepared to file a Darvon Darvocet lawsuit as soon as possible.
