A GlaxoSmithKline Litigation
The MA Labs Personal Injury Case was filed by the lead plaintiff Michael Ma. Michael suffered an injury while using a defective Tylenol pill. The defective pill caused him to suffer from stomach pains, nausea and vomiting, which all lead to extreme emotional distress. Michael Ma chose to file a case against GlaxoSmithKline, the company responsible for producing Tylenol, on the basis that they should be held responsible for his injuries. A week later, the case was settled outside of court.
Why was the settlement outside of court? This is simple.
GlaxoSmithKline is a highly profitable pharmaceutical company with millions of dollars annually. It has also become a huge manufacturer of prescription and over-the-counter medicines and has invested billions of dollars in research and development of new products. To fight a potential class-action lawsuit, it will not want to have to go to trial.
Ma’s lawyer argued that because the company produced only one product, their financial losses were limited.
However, Michael Ma’s attorney stated that if the case went to trial GlaxoSmithKline would spend millions of dollars and potentially lose more than they won. The settlement was signed without Ma’s attorney present. The attorneys for both sides met with the lead plaintiff, but once there was no settlement, they informed Ma that there were “no case” and that he would have to pursue the lawsuit himself. Michael Ma’s attorney then pursued the case on his own.
If you’re familiar with limitations such as these, you’ll know that they typically involve one party who sues another, often seeking monetary compensation for injuries or losses they sustained as a result of the defendant’s negligence.
When faced with such a scenario, the parties often reach an agreement out of court. That’s not the case here. GlaxoSmithKline vigorously opposed the claims and spent millions of dollars on advertisements and depositions. They were even willing to face the lead plaintiff in court, should that ever become necessary.
There are many reasons why a company would develop a safety recall.
But the main reason is because they’ve discovered a product that’s dangerous. In this instance, they’re simply trying to remove the product from the marketplace, rather than facing a possible lawsuit. This is why you’ll frequently see such a recall announced as a “precautionary” recall. It’s intended to warn consumers about the potential dangers of the product, rather than punish them for using it.
So, back to the original question: Did the lead plaintiff have a case?
The answer isn’t simple. The lead plaintiff didn’t prove that his or her neighbor’s recalled product was dangerous. Neither did the defense to show that there wasn’t a real safety concern. Therefore, the claim was rejected by the court and will most likely never see the light of day.