Fentanyl Patch Lawyer, Lawsuit, and Side Effect News

Another Family Sues Watson Laboratories Over The Company’s Fentanyl Patches

Here is another fentanyl lawsuit filed in California against Watson Laboratories, Inc.  This one alleges that a defective 100 mcg/hr killed Melissa Mohammed.

6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, promoted, marketed, distributed, tested, warranted and sold Watson (fentanyl transdermal system) patches (“Watson Patches”) in interstate commerce and in the County of Orange, State of California. Furthermore, Defendants conducted substantial business in the County of Orange, advertised the Watson Patches in this county, received substantial compensation and profits from sales of the Watson Patches in this county, and made material omissions and misrepresentations and committed breaches of warranties in this county.

7. This suit arises out of the wrongful death of Decedent due to the wrongful conduct of Defendants. Decedent, while a patient of Dr. Marshall Millman, was given a prescription for 100 mcg Watson (fentanyl transdermal system) patches. Decedent was wearing one of these patches (the “Mohammed Patch”) at the time of her death and it was the cause of her death. The Watson Patch worn by Decedent at the time of her death was designed and manufactured by Defendant Watson Laboratories, Inc. The Mohammed Patch was marketed and distributed by Defendants Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc. shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Watson Defendants.”

8. Watson (fentanyl transdermal system) patches also came in other sizes such as 25, 50, and 75 meg. As referenced herein, the “Patch” shall refer to Watson (fentanyl transdermal system) patches of any size unless specified otherwise.

9. The Patch is a multi-layer system containing a gel which has the drug fentanyl in it. Fentanyl is an extremely dangerous drug that is at least 80 times stronger than morphine. Fentanyl is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance by the FDA and is generally used to relieve pain.

10. The Patch is applied by the patient and delivers fentanyl though the patient's skin. The Watson Defendants design, manufacture, market and sell the Patch with the intention that it will release a certain amount of fentanyl into a patient at a certain rate, and thus produce a certain level of fentanyl in the blood of the patient. In other words, if a Patch functions as intended and it is properly used by the patient, the patient should not receive a harmful dose of fentanyl. Decedent never abused the Patch or used it inappropriately.

11. The Mohammed Patch was manufactured at the Watson Defendants' facility in Corona, California. The Mohammed Patch was made utilizing a reservoir design which means that the fentanyl gel is inserted into a reservoir between two of the patch's layers.

12. The Patch is unsafe for its intended or reasonably foreseeable use because it can and does leak and/or because it otherwise causes lethal levels of fentanyl in patients.

13. Another design for Fentanyl patches existed at the time the Mohammed Patch was manufactured called the “matrix” design. At all relevant times, the Watson Defendants could have made fentanyl patches of a matrix design, as opposed to a reservoir design. The matrix technology cannot leak fentanyl. A sealed multi-laminate design could have also been used.

14. In 2008, the Watson Defendants recalled a lot of fentanyl patches because of leaking patches.

This is the second lawsuit in which the lawyer alleged that Watson manufactures its fentanyl patches in California.  The documents I’ve seen indicate the patches are manufactured in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand in Watson Fentanyl Patch Lawsuit

Whether it is true or not, many corporate defendants believe that they’re better off in a federal court than in a state court.  So when someone sues them in a state court, they often "remove” the lawsuit from the state court and put it in a federal court.  The plaintiff can challenge that removal by filing a motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court.  This is an example of such a motion filed in a fentanyl lawsuit in California:

In the early morning of February 10, 2008, Nicole was discovered unresponsive in her home by her boyfriend. Paramedics were quickly called to the scene and Nicole was taken to the hospital where, after several unsuccessful attempts at revival, she was declared dead. On February 19, 2008, Los Angeles County Medical Examiner Vladimir Levicky performed an autopsy on Nicole's body. A 75 meg/hour Watson patch was present on her inner left arm and the toxicology tests revealed that Nicole had an elevated level of fentanyl in her blood of 15 ng/mL. Fentanyl has proven lethal at concentrations as low as 3.0 ng/mL and the fatal level of fentanyl averages 8.3 ng/ml.

The patch found on Nicole's body was designed, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Watson Laboratories, Inc. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc. (collectively, the “Watson Defendants.”) Defendants Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. have home offices in California.

On January 21, 2009, Plaintiffs, Nicole's surviving parents, filed suit against the Watson Defendants in California state court alleging strict product liability and negligence in the design, manufacture and marketing of the Watson patch(es) that were used by Melissa near or at the time of her death. Plaintiffs also alleged breach of warranty.

One day after the Complaint had been filed, the Watson Defendants--who had obviously been monitoring the state court docket--filed a Notice of Removal (the “Notice”). The sole removing party, Watson Pharma, Inc., contends that despite the forum defendant rule, removal was proper under 1441(b) because the forum defendants had not been “served” with the Complaint at the time the Notice was filed. (Def. Mot. at 4). On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff Chris Bristol, a California resident, joined the action as a Plaintiff. For the reasons set forth more fully below, this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction, Watson Pharma's Notice of Removal was improper and this case should be remanded back to California state court. This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 which took place on or before February 19, 2009.

Whether to file in state or federal court is one of the decisions a fentanyl lawyer must make before he or she files a lawsuit. 

Fentanyl Patch Lawsuit Filed Against Watson Laboratories, Inc.

Watson Laboratories, Inc., manufactures a generic fentanyl pain patch.  It is based on the reservoir design of the Duragesic patch, meaning it has a reservoir of fentanyl gel than can leak. 

7. This suit arises out of the wrongful death of Decedent due to the wrongful conduct of Defendants. Decedent, while a patient of Dr. Jeanne Myriam Axler, was given a prescription for 75 mcg Watson (fentanyl transdermal system) patches. Decedent was wearing one of these patches (the “Bristol Patch”) at the time of her death and it was the cause of her death. The Watson Patch worn by Decedent at the time of her death was designed and manufactured by Defendant Watson Laboratories, Inc. The Bristol Patch was marketed and distributed by Defendants Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc. shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Watson Defendants.”

8. Watson (fentanyl transdermal system) patches also came in other sizes such as 25, 50, and 100 mcg. As referenced herein, the “Patch” shall refer to Watson (fentanyl transdermal system) patches of any size unless specified otherwise.

9. The Patch is a multi-layer system containing a gel which has the drug fentanyl in it. Fentanyl is an extremely dangerous drug that is at least 80 times stronger than morphine. Fentanyl is classified as a Schedule II controlled substance by the FDA and is generally used to relieve pain.

10. The Patch is applied by the patient and delivers fentanyl though the patient's skin. The Watson Defendants design, manufacture, market and sell the Patch with the intention that it will release a certain amount of fentanyl into a patient at a certain rate, and thus produce a certain level of fentanyl in the blood of the patient. In other words, if a Patch functions as intended and it is properly used by the patient, the patient should not receive a harmful dose of fentanyl. Decedent never abused the Patch or used it inappropriately.

11. The Bristol Patch was manufactured at the Watson Defendants' facility in Corona, California. The Bristol Patch was made utilizing a reservoir design which means that the fentanyl gel is inserted into a reservoir between two of the patch's layers.

12. The Patch is unsafe for its intended or reasonably foreseeable use because it can and does leak and/or because it otherwise causes lethal levels of fentanyl in patients.

13. Another design for Fentanyl patches existed at the time the Bristol Patch was manufactured called the “matrix” design. At all relevant times, the Watson Defendants could have made fentanyl patches of a matrix design, as opposed to a reservoir design. The matrix technology cannot leak fentanyl. A sealed multi-laminate design could have also been used.

Paragraph 11 alleges that the patch is manufactured in Corona, California.  My information is that Watson manufactures their fentanyl patches at their Salt Lake City, Utah facility.  Not that it really matters – since Watson is headquartered in California, that’s a proper venue to sue the company.

Information About The Watson Fentanyl Patch Recall

On August 4th of 2008, Watson Laboratories, Inc. of Corona, California recalled one lot of 75 mcg/hr fentanyl pain patches.  The patches were manufactured in Watson's Salt Lake City, Utah factory.

The lot number was 92461850, and the expiration date of the patches is 08/31/2009.  25,412 cartons of 5 patches each were recalled, for a total of 127,060 patches recalled.

The patches were recalled because of their potential to leak fentanyl gel, and the patches were distributed nationwide.