NEISWONGER v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al

On June 6, 2021, Terry Neiswonger, (“Plaintiff”)  represented by David L. Friend of Hissey, Mulderig & Friend, PLLC, filed a personal injury - medical/pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, Takeda Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, America, Inc.,Pfizer, Inc., Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. f/k/a Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking compensatory relief, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs for the alleged injuries suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the use of the Defendants’ PPI products. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey with Judges Mark Falk and Claire C. Cecchi presiding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges “As a result of using PPI Products, Plaintiff/Decedent suffered pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, and personal and economic injur(ies) that are alleged to have been caused by the use of the PPI Products identified. These injuries include but are not limited to: injury to himself/herself, injury to the person represented, and economic loss.”

The Plaintiff also alleges that “Plaintiff/Decedent used the following PPI Products, for which claims are being asserted: Prevacid and Protonix. The injuries suffered by Plaintiff/Decedent as a result of the use of PPI Products include, among others: Acute Interstitial Nephritis (AIN), Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), and End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).”

There are eleven claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. These include Strict Product Liability for alleged design defect and alleged failure to warn, alleged negligence and alleged negligence per se, alleged breach of express warranty, alleged breach of implied warranty, alleged negligent misrepresentation, alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, alleged fraudulent concealment, and alleged violation of State Consumer Protection Laws of the State of Arkansas.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requests the Court to order judgment against Defendants of compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, costs of suit and such further relief as the Court deems equitable and just, and as set forth in the Master Long Form Complaint and Jury Demand, as appropriate.

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.