Crestor Diabetes Lawsuit Remanded Back to California State Court

A product liability lawsuit filed against AstraZeneca by nine different plaintiffs who allege they developed diabetes from Crestor side effects is being sent back to state court in California, after a U.S. District Judge determined that it was improperly removed by the drug maker to the federal court system.

The complaint (PDF) was originally filed in the California Superior Court of Los Angeles on February 20, naming AstraZeneca and the drug distributor McKesson Corporation as defendants.

AstraZeneca filed a Notice of Removal (PDF) on May 26, arguing that under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The drug maker argued that because plaintiffs filed a request in state court to coordinate the case with other Crestor diabetes lawsuits pending in California, the federal courts have jurisdiction over the case as a “mass tort.”

Did You Know?

Millions of Philips CPAP Machines Recalled

Philips DreamStation, CPAP and BiPAP machines sold in recent years may pose a risk of cancer, lung damage and other injuries.

Learn More

In an order (PDF) issued by U.S. District Judge John F. Walter on June 5, which was issued without any briefing by the parties, the case was sent back to state court shortly after it arrived in the federal court system.

Judge Walter noted that pursuant to a prior decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the case and that the case would not be stayed on the “mere chance that the Ninth Circuit will reverse its earlier precedent” when it rules on another case argued February 10. In addition, Judge Walter noted that staying the case will not promote judicial efficiency, especially since many other similar Crestor lawsuits have been pending in coordinated California actions since 2012.

Risk of Diabetes from Crestor

The case at issue was brought on behalf of nine former users of Crestor, as well as three of their spouses who are pursuing claims for loss of consortium.

Each of the former Crestor users allege that they were diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type II after taking the blockbuster cholesterol drug. Plaintiffs allege that inadequate warnings were provided about the risk that side effects of Crestor may lead to the development of diabetes.

Nearly 600 other Crestor diabetes lawsuits are currently pending in California state court, raising nearly identical allegations that AstraZeneca intentionally concealed or suppressed the risks, committed negligence and breach of warranty, and designed and manufactured a defective drug.

Crestor is part of a class of medications known as statins, which are among the best-selling drugs in the United States. The medications use the liver to block the body’s creation of cholesterol, which is a key contributor to coronary artery disease. However, a number of studies have linked the drugs to an increased risk of potentially serious injuries, including muscle damage, kidney problems, and diabetes.

In February 2012, the FDA required the makers of Crestor and other statins to add new warnings about the potential impact of the medication on blood glucose levels. However, many critics have suggested that the warnings are not strong enough for certain medications, indicating that users and the medical community should be provided with more accurate information about the diabetes risks with Lipitor, Crestor and other statins.

In addition to the claims against Crestor, which have mostly been limited to California state court, Pfizer currently faces hundreds of Lipitor diabetes lawsuits filed by women who raise similar allegations that inadequate warnings were provided by the drug maker.

Plaintiffs in the Lipitor litigation generally claim that they took the medication as a preventative measure to reduce their risk of heart failure, yet now they are left with a number of health risks associated with diabetes, including an increased risk of heart disease.

Claims against both Pfizer and AstraZeneca allege that the drug makers knew or should have known about risk diabetes from Lipitor and Crestor for years, but withheld information to avoid a negative impact on sales and growth of the blockbuster medications.

Image Credit: |

1 Comments

  • MarkJune 14, 2017 at 7:22 pm

    I’m a 56 year old male that has been on Crestor for 18 years. I have been routinely tested for liver and kidney function with high elevated results. It was in the last year that it was found out my muscle enzymes go very high while taking statins causing Rhabdomyolysis. I have been taken off of the drug in Sept 2016 after it was discovered. I have developed loss of balance, right and left foot dro[Show More]I’m a 56 year old male that has been on Crestor for 18 years. I have been routinely tested for liver and kidney function with high elevated results. It was in the last year that it was found out my muscle enzymes go very high while taking statins causing Rhabdomyolysis. I have been taken off of the drug in Sept 2016 after it was discovered. I have developed loss of balance, right and left foot drop with peripheral nueropathy and myopathy in both legs. I have been evaluated by the Scottsdale, AZ Mayo Clinic group as of Feb 2017. I have had to go off work 3/3/17 and on short term disability due to my unstableness in my legs, ankles and feet. I have had no balance and right foot drop for 4 years and worked as long as possible till the new conditions have been presented. Now added left foot drop and polymyopathy & neuropathy in both legs. This was a $100k plus a year job that I can no longer perform my work after 32 years in the mining industry. I have all the doctor reports from MD’s, Neurologist and Surgeons. This greatly effects my future and my mobility due to side effects of statins and Rhabdomyolysis.

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories