In Louisiana, Mother Says Zofran Caused Her Son’s Congenital Heart Defects

According to Michael Monheit, Esq., managing partner at Monheit Law, several new Zofran birth defect lawsuits have been filed in the wake of GlaxoSmithKline’s request to consolidate all federally-filed Zofran claims in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Among the latest claims is a lawsuit filed on June 26, 2015 in the US District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Registered as case number 2:15-cv-02323, the claim was filed by a mother from Independence, Louisiana. In her lawsuit, she alleges that prenatal exposure to Zofran, commonly prescribed as an “off label” treatment for the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, caused her unborn son to develop several congenital heart defects.

“Many of the lawsuits filed thus far have been brought in relation to heart defects,” Monheit says, “but this claim is notable for involving an atrial septal defect. A team of researchers in Denmark found that women prescribed Zofran during the first trimester were more than twice as likely to have babies with ASD,” he reports, using an acronym for atrial septal defect. Monheit is the chief contributing attorney to ZofranLegal.com, a website sponsored by an alliance of experienced plaintiffs’ attorneys who have turned their full attention to the ongoing Zofran litigation. A copy of this most recent complaint can be found here.

Monheit says that the Plaintiff in case 2:15-cv-02323 also claims that her son was born with partial anomalous pulmonary venous return, a condition in which veins that transport blood from the lungs to the heart connect to a chamber on the organ’s right side rather than its left side. “In her complaint, the mother says that her child has already undergone two surgeries to repair his congenital heart defects,” Monheit reports.

In court documents, the mother claims that she was prescribed Zofran, a powerful anti-nausea drug, to treat the symptoms of morning sickness during her first trimester. She says that she continued taking the drug as prescribed into the third trimester of pregnancy. Noting that Zofran has never been approved for use during pregnancy, Plaintiff alleges that GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully promoted the drug as a “safe and effective” morning sickness treatment. She cites a 2012 lawsuit in which the US Federal Government charged the company for marketing Zofran to obstetricians and gynecologists as safe for pregnant women to take.

On the contrary, Plaintiff claims that GlaxoSmithKline has been receiving evidence of the drug’s potential to increase birth defect risks for decades. She says that the company has concealed “internal analyses” and numerous reports of birth defects linking Zofran to major birth defects from the public, health community and US Food & Drug Administration.

If these allegations are true, any woman who was prescribed Zofran as an “off label” morning sickness treatment and then delivered a child with major birth defects may be eligible to bring a claim against GlaxoSmithKline. Michael Monheit is currently offering free consultations to parents interested in learning more about the Zofran litigation. For a case eligibility evaluation at no cost, call 1-877-620-8411.