What is the Status of the Litigation for Pradaxa Internal Bleeding?



Thousands of complaints have been filed on behalf of individuals throughout the United States who suffered severe and often fatal injuries while using the anticoagulant Pradaxa.

In 2014, the drug maker reached a global settlement agreement to resolve the Pradaxa litigation for more than $650 million, settling about 4,000 cases before the first trial was scheduled to begin. However, as individuals continue to suffer severe and sometimes fatal bleeding complications, additional cases are being considered by the lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk, P.A.

Pradaxa MDL History

The first Pradaxa lawsuit was filed in March 2012, alleging that Boehringer Ingelheim negligently introduced and promoted their anticoagulant as superior to warfarin (Coumadin), without providing adequate warnings about the risk of internal bleeding from Pradaxa.

While users of Coumadin can be given a reversal agent if internal bleeding develops, the drug maker failed to warn that no such antidote is available to allow physicians to stop a hemorrhage or bleeding event that occurs while using Pradaxa.

On August 8, 2012, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated all Pradaxa proceedings pending throughout the federal court system before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts throughout the country were transferred to Judge David R. Herndon in the Southern District of Illinois, where the Pradaxa MDL (multidistrict litigation) has been centralized.

Coordination of the federal Pradaxa litigation was designed to reduce duplicative discovery in hundreds of cases throughout the United States (allowing Plaintiffs to share common fact discovery), eliminate conflicting pretrial orders and schedules from different judges and to facilitate to the efficient conduct of the litigation.

While many confuse the MDL process with a Pradaxa class action lawsuit, it is very different, with each case remains an individual claim. The litigation does not proceed through a class representative, but each plaintiff must establish that their specific bleeding problems were caused by Pradaxa.

The multidistrict litigation centralized pretrial proceedings, discovery and “bellwether” Pradaxa trials were scheduled to help the parties gauge how juries are likely to respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be offered throughout many cases.

Prior to the scheduled start of trials in late 2014, a Pradaxa settlement was reached to resolve the litigation for $650 million, resulting in the trials being cancelled.

Since that time, additional users of the controversial medication have suffered bleeding problems on Pradaxa, and the warnings provided by the drug maker remain insufficient and inadequate.

As a result, additional Pradaxa bleeding injury claims are being reviewed nationwide. To review whether you or a loved one may be entitled to financial compensation, request a free consultation and case evaluation.

Austin Kirk

Last Updated June 1, 2014

5 Comments • Add Your Comments

  • Mark says:

    My dad died 8 months after taking pradaxa. Still no answers.

    Posted on January 29, 2013 at 12:22 am

  • Monica says:

    My mother died after taking Pradaxa for less then a month and ” I think the settlement they made really sucks ” for lack of a better word . It is a great settlement if your on Pradaxa’s side or if your a lawyer, but as far as it being good for the ones who lost a loved one from Pradaxa, I think Not !

    Posted on June 18, 2014 at 12:26 pm

  • Elizabeth says:

    I developed an upper GIb after taking Prodaxa a short time I was hosipilized twice in. 2014 and had to four units of blood.
    My children had to get me toand from the hospital and doctor’s appoinment s and spent time away from their normal duties and families
    I they did this because I was MOM’ but they had to meker sacrifices to do this because I was MOM
    But they had to make big sacrifices because of my hospitalization.

    Posted on October 17, 2015 at 7:42 pm

  • frank says:

    was on pracxa i 2012/2013 admitted to hosp with redtal blleedingi 12/13/15 suffered a stroke abd now live in a wheelchairpleqase contact me via g mail only

    Posted on June 23, 2016 at 4:41 pm

  • Bruce says:

    After being diagnosed with atrial fib which reduced my lower left ventricle pumping efficiancy to a mere 10% of normal I was prescribed Pradaxa. In less than a year i was suffering from fainting spells, rectal and internal bleeding due to a perforated bulbosa duodenum. The climatic moment occurred at night when I fell unconscious on my master bathroom floor soiling myself uncontrollably and delerious. EMTs rushed to my house but I was so crazed by blood loss I refused transport until the Chief of Wake County EMTs- arrived and leaned over my twitching, dying body and told me, ” You’re a vet…no man left behind…. I’m NOT going to let YOU DIE here!” I guess there were still a few ounces of blood in my noggin as a croaked out my acquiescence. It took four units of blood and a week at REX hospital ( God Bless Them!), gastrointestinal surgery and a change from the deadly Pradaxa to Eliquis to save my life. Nemeroff Law is handling my claim although at this point they’ve lost 3 out of four encounters with the giant German pharma Boeringer. I missed my step daughters wedding reception, work ( I was on contract so no compensation or insurance). I can only pray to the Lord that there is Justice in his World and that through his Will that this deadly episode will result in some compensation for me and my family. Shortly thereafter I was forced to retire due to these and related conditions, ending a 31 year career on a very sour note.

    Posted on February 12, 2019 at 10:57 am

Add Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide contact information below and additional private comments if you want an attorney to contact you to review a potential case.

    The information below will not be published to this page.

  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.