Lawsuits have been filed by people who believe that the generic version of the popular antihistamine, OTC Walgreens, is defective and it causes people to have adverse reactions to it. Class action lawsuits are filed in federal court in California under the name of Plaintiffs against the manufacturer of OTC Walgreens and generic drug corporation, Prevacid.

According to information released by the Food and Drug Administration, a class action suit has been filed against Prevacid by a male who is suffering from restless leg syndrome. The man has been taking OTC Walgreens for approximately six years. He has been taking the generic version of the antihistamine, Prevacid, without incident since he began taking it about four months ago.

Class Action Lawsuit Against Prevacid

According to the FDA, the man started to feel less well about himself, he lost his appetite and energy, and his sleep quality deteriorated. He also experienced bouts of nausea, chest pains, and diarrhea.

The man did not file a formal complaint or claim with the company or the FDA because the manufacturer of the OTC Walgreens Prevacid has not agreed to remove the generic name of the antihistamine, OTC walgreens Prevacid 42 count, from the packaging.

When the FDA notified Walgreen Company, a division of the Neopens Pharmaceuticals Corporation about the case, the company removed the name “Otc Walgreens” from its website.

It also stopped selling the antihistamine, OTC Walgreens, on its website, stating that the medication was contaminated. According to FDA, the company did not plan to sell the product. Subsequently, the company received notification from the FDA that the company’s production of the non-prescription drug was found to be contaminated with melamine, a hazardous material, which is used to make injectable medications. Subsequently, the FDA added a black box warning to the product’s label, advising that anyone who uses the OTC Walgreens Prevacid FDT 15 mg Solutab generic should be under the care of a doctor, and that the product should not be taken by pregnant or breastfeeding women.

On August 6, the manufacturer of the OTC Walgreens Prevacid tablets used by the patient filed a suit against the company stating that the company failed to warn the public about the presence of melamine in its product.

The manufacturer, C.R. Neuro Chemicals Inc., claimed that the FDA failed to take into consideration the presence of melamine, and did not request that the substance be removed from the drug because it poses a risk of human health. As a result of this negligence on the part of the manufacturer, C.R. Neuro Chemicals has filed a class action lawsuit against the company calling it liable for the injuries suffered by the patient.

It seems as though this class action lawsuit is simply an attempt by the manufacturers of OTC Walgreens Prevacid tablets used by the plaintiff to extract money from the victims of their negligence.

At the very least, the manufacturers violated Florida statutes that require a warning to be placed on the product. If the plaintiff would have been allowed to sue under Florida Statute, they may have been able to obtain compensation for the pain and suffering caused by the poison, which is supposed to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Also, it is important to note that this class action lawsuit is only valid if the plaintiff can prove that he or she was actually affected by the presence of melamine in the tablet.

What makes class action lawsuits like the one filed against Provestra, is that the plaintiffs in the case actually have some sort of connection to the manufacturer of the item in question, rather than just relying on the manufacturer being negligent.

For example, the claim could be that the defendant cut corners and chose not to list the chemical as an ingredient in the product, when in fact it was. Also, in cases such as the one against Provestra, where the injury is caused because of the defendant’s negligence in supplying the proper warning about the dangers of the chemical, the class action lawsuit is clearly afoot. It will be interesting to see what happens next with regards to the case against Provestra.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *