This case was last updated from PACER on 09/01/2021 at 07:03:59 (UTC).

Fitch v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Case Summary

On August 31, 2021, Gregory Fitch (“Plaintiff”), as the surviving spouse of Elizabeth Hey-Fitch (the “Decedent”), represented by James G. Onder of Onder Law LLC, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis” or “Defendant”), seeking compensatory relief, along with pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, for the alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiff which resulted from Novartis’s alleged intentional failure to warn of dangerous and known risks associated with Tasigna—a Novartis-manufactured prescription medication for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (“CML”). This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri with Judge Stephen R. Clark presiding. 

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “This is a wrongful death action brought by Plaintiff Gregory Fitch (“Plaintiff”) as the surviving spouse of Elizabeth Hey-Fitch (the “Decedent”), against Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) to recover for injuries, including the wrongful death of the Decedent, resulting from Novartis’s intentional failure to warn of dangerous and known risks associated with Tasigna—a Novartis-manufactured prescription medication for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (“CML”). Specifically, Novartis failed to warn of risks that Tasigna causes several forms of severe, accelerated, and irreversible atherosclerotic-related conditions—i.e., the narrowing and hardening of arteries delivering blood to the arms, legs, heart, and brain. Despite warning doctors and patients in Canada of the risks of atherosclerotic-related conditions, Novartis concealed, and continues to conceal, its knowledge of Tasigna’s unreasonably dangerous risks from patients and the medical community.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “After beginning treatment with Tasigna, and as a direct and proximate result of Novartis’s actions and inaction, the Decedent suffered serious atherosclerotic-related injuries, including coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease. These devastating injuries led to multiple invasive surgeries and amputations, and ultimately killed the Decedent.”

 

The Plaintiff lists out three claims for relief. The first claim alleged is for Wrongful Death. The second claim alleged is for Strict Liability- Failure to Warn. The third claim alleged is for Negligence. The Plaintiff stated that Novartis' conduct as alleged herein was done with reckless disregard for human life, oppression, and malice. Plaintiff then alleged that Novartis was fully aware of the safety risks of Tasigna and that, nonetheless, Novartis deliberately crafted their label, marketing, and promotion to mislead consumers. Plaintiff then alleged that Novartis knew that it could turn a profit by convincing physicians and consumers that Tasigna came without certain, harmful risks. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that Novartis further knew that full disclosure of the true risks of Tasigna would limit the amount of money it would make selling the drug.

 

In his prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for a judgment against Novartis, awarding Plaintiffs any and all damages available to Plaintiffs under the law, including but not limited to: general damages according to proof;  medical and incidental expenses according to proof; all losses both financial and otherwise resulting from Decedent’s wrongful death;  for pain and suffering and emotional distress according to proof; punitive and exemplary damages sufficient to punish and make an example of each Defendant according to proof; and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs together with prejudgment interest. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

 

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    4:21-CV-01084

  • Filing Date:

    08/31/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Courthouse:

    Missouri Eastern District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Stephen R. Clark

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Gregory Fitch

Defendant

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

James G. Onder

Attorney at ONDER LAW LLC

110 East Lockwood, 1St Floor

St. Louis, MO 63119

 

Court Documents

#2

(#2) NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiff Gregory Fitch Process Server: Certified Process Service LLC (JKL) (Entered: 08/31/2021)

1 #4

Summons Summons

1 #3

Notice of Intent to Use Process Server

1 #2

Original Filing Form Original Filing Form

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants with receipt number AMOEDC-8843013, in the amount of $402 Jury Demand,, filed by Gregory Fitch. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Original Filing Form Original Filing Form, #3 Notice of Intent to Use Process Server, #4 Summons Summons)(Onder, James) Modified on 8/31/2021 to correct docket text(JKL). (Entered: 08/31/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketCase Opening Notification: 1 Summons(es) issued. The summons was emailed to Attorney James G. Onder. All non-governmental organizational parties (corporations, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships) must file Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate # (moed-0001.pdf). Judge Assigned: Honorable Stephen R. Clark. (JKL) (Entered: 08/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiff Gregory Fitch Process Server: Certified Process Service LLC (JKL) (Entered: 08/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants with receipt number AMOEDC-8843013, in the amount of $402 Jury Demand,, filed by Gregory Fitch. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Original Filing Form Original Filing Form, #3 Notice of Intent to Use Process Server, #4 Summons Summons)(Onder, James) Modified on 8/31/2021 to correct docket text(JKL). (Entered: 08/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Sandoz Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer James G. Onder