Skip Navigation

About Lawsuits

Suboxone Tooth Decay

Depo-Provera

Ozempic Wegovy and Mounjaro

Bard PowerPort

See if you qualify for compensation
See if you qualify for compensation

Fresenius Dialysis Treatment Lawsuit

Background information on Fresenius Dialysis Treatment lawsuits, settlements and litigation updates published between 2012to 2017.

Fresenius-Dialysis-Treatment-Lawsuit
Russell Maas

Add Your Comments

Fresenius Dialysis Treatment Lawsuit Overview

The Fresenius dialysis litigation centered on allegations that the company’s widely used dialysis products, GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, caused sudden cardiac arrest and death among patients undergoing treatment.

Manufactured by Fresenius Medical Care, the products were designed to help manage acid levels in the blood, but they contained ingredients that could lead to dangerously high bicarbonate levels if not properly administered. Thousands of patients and families claimed that Fresenius failed to warn clinics and healthcare providers about these risks, despite having internal data showing elevated rates of cardiac complications.

Concerns intensified after a 2012 internal memo surfaced indicating that Fresenius had known for months that improper use of its dialysis concentrates was contributing to a spike in patient deaths. The company was accused of alerting its own dialysis centers while withholding the same safety warnings from competing facilities that also used its products. In response, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a Class I recall—the agency’s most serious level—highlighting the potential for fatal outcomes.

The lawsuits were consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2428) in the District of Massachusetts, where plaintiffs pursued claims of negligence, failure to warn, and wrongful death. Fresenius ultimately agreed to a $250 million settlement in 2016 to resolve thousands of cases.

Fresenius Dialysis Litigation Updates

September 7, 2017: Fresenius Dialysis Defense Verdict Ends One of Final Granuflo Trials

A federal jury returned a defense verdict in one of the last remaining Fresenius Granuflo and Naturalyte lawsuits, finding the company not liable for a patient’s cardiac arrest following dialysis treatment. The decision came after years of litigation and thousands of claims alleging that Fresenius failed to warn of metabolic risks associated with its dialysate products.

August 16, 2016: Fresenius Agrees to Global Settlement of Granuflo and Naturalyte Lawsuits

Fresenius Medical Care reached a confidential settlement resolving thousands of lawsuits over its Granuflo and Naturalyte dialysis solutions. The agreement followed several years of multidistrict litigation, ending claims that the products caused sudden cardiac arrest due to undisclosed bicarbonate imbalances.

November 17, 2015: Bellwether Trials for Fresenius Dialysis Lawsuits Planned in MDL

The U.S. District Court overseeing the Fresenius Granuflo and Naturalyte MDL announced plans to select bellwether cases for early trial dates. The goal was to test key legal and medical issues before juries and encourage potential global resolution of the remaining claims.

April 15, 2015: Depositions Begin in Fresenius Granuflo Dialysis Litigation

Attorneys began deposing company executives and medical experts in preparation for upcoming bellwether trials. The depositions focused on internal Fresenius communications, including warnings allegedly issued to company clinics but not to outside providers.

September 15, 2014: More Than 2,000 Fresenius Dialysis Lawsuits Pending in Federal MDL

The number of lawsuits filed over Fresenius dialysis products rose to more than 2,000 nationwide, with cases centralized in the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs accused the company of concealing risks of cardiac arrest tied to the use of its dialysate products Granuflo and Naturalyte.

May 21, 2014: Federal Court Sets Granuflo Dialysate Lawsuit Trial Dates

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock scheduled a series of bellwether trials in the consolidated Fresenius Granuflo MDL. The cases were chosen to represent common claims and medical circumstances among plaintiffs who suffered cardiac arrest or death following dialysis treatment.

March 17, 2014: Fresenius Bellwether Trial Schedules Issued in MDL

The court issued its first scheduling order outlining the process for selecting representative cases to proceed to trial. Both parties were instructed to identify discovery priorities and coordinate expert testimony.

January 14, 2014: Bellwether Trial Proposals Submitted in Fresenius Litigation

Plaintiffs and defense counsel submitted competing proposals outlining which Granuflo and Naturalyte lawsuits should serve as bellwether trials. The selections were designed to test core issues about Fresenius’s failure to warn of potential bicarbonate overdose.

November 22, 2013: Identification Process Established for Granuflo and Naturalyte Claims

The court approved an identification and verification process to organize the growing number of lawsuits filed nationwide. The order required plaintiffs to submit detailed injury documentation to streamline pretrial discovery.

July 29, 2013: Master Complaint Filed Over Fresenius Dialysis Treatments

Plaintiffs filed a master complaint consolidating allegations that Fresenius failed to warn doctors and patients about the risks of elevated bicarbonate levels caused by Granuflo and Naturalyte products. The filing served as the central pleading document in the MDL.

June 20, 2013: Trial Selection in Fresenius Dialysis Cases Delayed

Judge Woodlock postponed the selection of early trial cases to allow additional time for discovery and settlement discussions. Attorneys on both sides agreed that further investigation was needed into Fresenius’s internal testing procedures.

March 21, 2013: Motions Addressed During Granuflo Dialysate Lawsuits Conference

The federal court held a motion hearing to address procedural disputes over discovery and expert evidence in the consolidated Fresenius litigation. The session advanced coordination among multiple law firms representing affected dialysis patients.

February 20, 2013: Fresenius Dialysis Lawyers Meet in MDL Coordination Conference

Plaintiffs’ attorneys and defense counsel met with the presiding judge to discuss case management strategies for the consolidated litigation. The conference covered deadlines for discovery, protective orders, and bellwether trial planning.

December 12, 2012: DaVita Named in Dialysis Lawsuits Over Granuflo and Naturalyte

Lawsuits expanded to include DaVita, another major dialysis provider, for allegedly using the Fresenius products linked to patient deaths. Plaintiffs accused both companies of failing to act on known warnings about cardiac risks during dialysis.

November 15, 2012: MDL Conference Held to Coordinate Fresenius Granuflo Cases

The MDL court convened its first formal status conference, addressing procedural orders and early discovery coordination. Attorneys reviewed Fresenius’s internal safety memos that triggered FDA scrutiny earlier that year.

August 14, 2012: Leadership Appointed in Fresenius Granuflo and Naturalyte MDL

Judge Woodlock appointed a team of plaintiffs’ attorneys to lead the coordinated federal litigation. The appointments established a structure for discovery, expert witness management, and global settlement discussions.

March 29, 2012: Federal MDL Formed for Fresenius Granuflo and Naturalyte Dialysis Lawsuits

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all federal Granuflo and Naturalyte cases in the District of Massachusetts. The move centralized pretrial proceedings to streamline management of the rapidly growing docket.

July 10, 2012: Fresenius Supports Creation of MDL for Dialysate Injury Lawsuits

Fresenius announced its support for the proposed MDL to coordinate litigation involving its dialysis products. The company stated that consolidation would promote efficiency and consistency in rulings.

March 29, 2012: Petition Filed to Centralize Fresenius Granuflo and Naturalyte Lawsuits

Plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to centralize all federal lawsuits over cardiac injury and death linked to Fresenius dialysis products. The petition cited common factual questions about inadequate safety warnings.

Fresenius Dialysis Research and Recalls

January 26, 2017: Granuflo and Naturalyte Lawsuit Filed Following Bacterial Contamination Recall

A Kentucky woman filed a lawsuit after suffering injuries allegedly caused by contaminated dialysis products recalled by Fresenius. The recall involved Naturalyte dialysate solutions that tested positive for bacterial contamination, raising renewed concerns about manufacturing oversight and patient safety.

March 12, 2015: Bacterial Contamination Found in Naturalyte Dialysate Solutions Prompts FDA Warning

Federal regulators announced a recall of certain lots of Fresenius’s Naturalyte dialysis concentrate after contamination was detected during quality testing. The recall followed multiple reports of adverse patient reactions linked to bacterial exposure.

June 17, 2014: Deaths and Injuries Reported From Recalled Naturalyte Dialysis Solution

The FDA disclosed reports of patient deaths and severe injuries tied to Fresenius Naturalyte solutions that had been recalled due to contamination concerns. Officials said the company’s corrective actions were under review to ensure safer manufacturing practices.

May 20, 2014: Naturalyte Recall Expanded Over Bicarbonate Concentrate Problems

Fresenius expanded its recall of Naturalyte Liquid Bicarbonate Concentrate after identifying additional affected lots distributed nationwide. The company warned dialysis centers to stop using the affected product to avoid serious metabolic complications.

April 11, 2014: Fresenius Issues Recall for Naturalyte Bicarbonate Dialysate Solutions

A recall was issued for certain lots of Fresenius Naturalyte Liquid Bicarbonate Concentrate due to contamination and labeling problems that could lead to improper dosing. The FDA classified the recall as Class I, its most serious level, due to the potential for fatal outcomes.

August 22, 2013: Peritoneal Dialysis Solution Recalled Due to Particulate Contamination

Fresenius Medical Care recalled its DIANEAL peritoneal dialysis solutions after discovering particulate matter that could enter patients’ bloodstreams during treatment. The FDA warned that exposure could lead to inflammation, embolism, or infection.

April 30, 2013: Fresenius Recalls Dialysis Machines Over Electrical Malfunctions

Fresenius initiated a recall of its 2008K2 dialysis machines due to potential electrical defects that could interrupt treatment or cause power loss mid-procedure. The company advised clinics to inspect and service affected units immediately.

November 19, 2012: FDA Issues Warning Letter to Fresenius Blood Bag Manufacturing Plant

Federal regulators issued a warning letter to a Fresenius manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico, citing quality control violations in the production of blood bags and medical components. The agency noted inadequate sterilization protocols and failure to document contamination risks.

October 3, 2012: FDA Investigates Fresenius Dialysis Clinics Over Patient Safety Concerns

An FDA inspection revealed lapses in reporting patient deaths and serious injuries linked to Fresenius dialysis products. The agency launched a broader review into company safety practices following numerous incidents of cardiac arrest among dialysis patients.

August 20, 2012: Fresenius Recalls Magnesium Sulfate Injection Products

Fresenius Kabi recalled multiple lots of magnesium sulfate injections after particulates were found in vials during routine inspection. The FDA warned that use of contaminated injections could cause tissue damage or embolic events in vulnerable patients.

August 3, 2012: Dialysis Clinic Shut Down Following Series of Patient Deaths

A Fresenius dialysis clinic in Pennsylvania was temporarily closed after several patients died under similar circumstances. Health investigators cited improper use of dialysate concentrates and ongoing deficiencies in staff training.

April 16, 2012: FDA Issues Warning Over Fresenius Dialysis Product Design

The FDA sent a warning letter to Fresenius identifying design flaws in its dialysis systems that could contribute to improper bicarbonate dosing. The agency demanded corrective actions to prevent further patient injuries linked to the company’s equipment.

March 29, 2012: Fresenius Recalls Granuflo and Naturalyte Dialysis Products Over Fatal Risks

Fresenius Medical Care announced a recall of its Granuflo and Naturalyte dialysate solutions after data revealed links to sudden cardiac arrest. The recall followed an internal company memo acknowledging dosing miscalculations that increased patient bicarbonate levels during dialysis.

February 27, 2012: Study Links Hemodialysis Dosing Errors to Increased Patient Risk

A review of dialysis treatment practices revealed that errors in bicarbonate dosing during hemodialysis could significantly increase the risk of cardiac arrest. The findings predated the later Granuflo and Naturalyte recalls, underscoring longstanding safety concerns.

Fresenius Dialysis Lawsuit Examples

October 4, 2012: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Fresenius Dialysis Treatments

A class action was filed against Fresenius Medical Care alleging that its Granuflo and Naturalyte dialysis solutions caused heart attacks and cardiac deaths. Plaintiffs accused the company of concealing information about bicarbonate dosing risks that led to fatal metabolic complications during hemodialysis.

August 10, 2012: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed After Hemodialysis Treatment at Fresenius Clinic

The family of a deceased patient filed a wrongful death claim, alleging that improper use of Fresenius dialysis products caused a fatal cardiac arrest. The lawsuit claimed that staff failed to follow safety warnings regarding the company’s dialysate formulas.

May 31, 2012: Lawsuits Filed Nationwide Over Heart Problems and Deaths Linked to Fresenius Dialysis

Multiple lawsuits were filed by dialysis patients and families who suffered heart attacks and sudden deaths allegedly caused by Granuflo and Naturalyte. The complaints cited internal company memos acknowledging that Fresenius had warned its own clinics about the risks months before alerting other providers.

April 17, 2012: DaVita Named in Class Action Over Granuflo and Naturalyte Dialysis Products

A class action lawsuit targeted DaVita HealthCare Partners, alleging the company used Fresenius-manufactured dialysate products that led to fatal cardiac complications. The filing claimed DaVita failed to adequately monitor patient bicarbonate levels during dialysis sessions.

March 27, 2012: Fresenius Hemodialysis Lawsuit Filed Over Heart Attack and Stroke

A dialysis patient filed suit against Fresenius, alleging that exposure to its Granuflo solution caused both a heart attack and a stroke. The case sought compensation for permanent cardiovascular injury and failure to warn claims under product liability law.

February 28, 2012: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed After Fatal Dialysis Treatment Using Granuflo Solution

The family of a deceased dialysis patient filed suit against Fresenius Medical Care, claiming that its Granuflo solution caused fatal cardiac arrest. The complaint alleged that the company failed to disclose known risks to hospitals and clinics outside its network.

February 6, 2012: Dialysis Malpractice Lawsuit Filed Over Patient Injury

A dialysis patient filed a medical malpractice lawsuit after suffering severe complications allegedly tied to bicarbonate dosing errors during hemodialysis. The lawsuit accused both the treating clinic and Fresenius of negligence in product use and supervision.

January 23, 2012: Granuflo Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Cardiac Arrest During Dialysis

A wrongful death claim alleged that Fresenius’s Granuflo dialysate product caused cardiac arrest due to unregulated bicarbonate levels. The suit claimed the company distributed unsafe medical solutions without proper clinical warnings or dosage guidance.

January 12, 2012: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Over Heart Attack During Hemodialysis

The family of a dialysis patient who died from cardiac arrest during treatment alleged that improper dosing with Fresenius dialysate solutions was to blame. The case was one of the earliest to raise questions about the company’s failure to alert regulators to patient deaths.

December 14, 2011: Lawsuit Filed Over Dialysis Death Linked to Fresenius Naturalyte and Granuflo

A wrongful death lawsuit alleged that Fresenius products caused fatal metabolic complications during dialysis treatment. The filing highlighted early internal warnings suggesting the company knew about risks but delayed informing healthcare providers.

November 30, 2011: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Fresenius Over Granuflo Dialysis Treatment

A family filed a lawsuit after a relative died following dialysis with Fresenius’s Granuflo solution, claiming the product caused a fatal pH imbalance. The case accused the company of negligence, failure to warn, and defective product design.

November 15, 2011: Fresenius Sued Over Dangerous Drug Complications During Dialysis

An early lawsuit accused Fresenius of manufacturing unsafe dialysis drugs that contributed to a patient’s death. The claim served as a precursor to hundreds of later lawsuits consolidated into multidistrict litigation over Granuflo and Naturalyte.

1336 Comments

Stan
I am confident in what Joe says. It’s unfortunate if some people cannot understand him. It can get a little confusing at times though but I am happy to have information that I am unable to get from my lawyer. It is very helpful and greatly appreciated. Thank you Joe!!
Ken
My Mother was getting Granuflo and naturalyte so a long time .she almost die in the chair many times The last time she pass two days later.they tell me i will only get $1500 yet from all the near deaths with her she was just like a stoke victim for all this and only $1500
Debbie
I didn’t mean to criticize you Joe. This whole thing has been exasperating. You are just reporting the facts of this case as its posted on the website. That’s more info than any of us have been able to muster up but I don’t understand what you are posting either as I don’t have a legal background and haven’t had any legal cases to use an attorney for, and don’t understand all that legal jargon. When I do call my attorney though he does call me back the next day and answers any questions I have, so I’m just trying to help these other people out there who are getting ignored by theirs. That’s terrible their attorneys don’t get back to them. Whether it’s good news or bad news those attorneys are still going to get paid. The only other thing that bothers me also is how little this lawsuit potentially is settling for as the blood thinner law suit paid out 650 million to their claimants. Big difference. I don’t get it. I understand that the Granuflo itself was not ithe problem but the way it was used on my dad is what killed him, and he is gone now isn’t coming back and same with all of your loved ones. What a shame. I guess I use this website as a sounding board.. I miss him terribly. I would love for others to join in on this website. I’m sure any input is good or even just to share your experiences with this process since its been going on is helpful. Sounds like a lot of you have some lame attorneys. If they can’t call you back at least they should have their secretaries call you back with some info.
Carolyn
Joe, Entered both my name and my late husbands name on Bing. Nothing. Guess this means am SOL
Joe
Laurie The information you get is always old news why would you post information a month after I post the exact same thing. Your information actually is confusing and not completely accurate. I appreciate it though.The information about submitting papers I gave that information a month before you ever said anything about it. You are off on the timeline. How can your lawyer give you dates when the claims administrator hasn’t even process the claims? How does your lawyer know it’s going to take until 2018? That’s ridiculous nobody knows. Unless he or she is A psychic and looking into a crystal ball and telling you what they see. So stop giving information you are not sure of. I told everyone like a month ago we should know numbers sometime into the summer and payouts should start sometime in the fall. I also said documents still needed to be submitted. I don’t know whats confusing about that. I never gave exact dates my lawyer would never give exact dates out. No lawyer knows the exact dates. All your lawyer did was give the information I already told everyone a month ago. You gave some crazy unverified dates. So that’s old info. i gave some info but i would not give exact dates out because no one knows. It all depends on how fast the claims administrator can processes each and every claim also some law firms take longer than others to submit the documents to the claims administrator. The lawyers know they can submit documents now. i told people that about a month ago. I Just gave general timelines not dates. If you want to know if you are still in this lawsuit. Put your (last name .v Fresenius) in the Bing search engine. Don’t Put it in Google. Because Google will give you to many results and the majority will have nothing to do with your case. So I recommend Using Bing. In Bing in the first one or two results it will be your case. You will at least know if you are still in this lawsuit or if your case has been dismissed. Laurie people are not getting any information from there lawyers. They don’t call them or email them back. How can they ask there lawyer when there lawyer does not respond? I told everyone a long time ago to verify things with there lawyers first. Not to just take my word on it. But if the lawyer wont respond to them what do you think they should do then? You sound suspicious to me Laurie. I’m not sure you are who you say you are. It really makes no difference to me Who you are though. I know what I tell people is accurate. If you cannot understand the court documents that I put on here and you don’t ask what they mean so I can help you understand them. Then I cant help you. The information I gave comes from the court orders memorandums testimonies and so forth. So if you do not understand then that is the judges falt. I understand then perfectly. Laurie if you read back you can see I posted way before you ever did about the document submission. I suggest if you do not believe me or you do not understand what I post ignore my posts and you will have no problems. Laurie why do you say this settlement is so small? You have no idea how many claims there will be in category #1 so how can you say this settlement is so small there may only be a couple hundred in category # 1 you have no clue. Unfortunately the people in category #3 Will only receive $1500 and that does seem unfair and small. They did not have proof of some kind that was needed. There are more people that did not opt in than was expected. They expected 10% not to Opt-in and it went way over that. I am not sure if this lawsuit is going to be triggered but they are going to except the people that have opted in. There are going to be a lot of trials. So before you say it’s unfair wait for the full number count to come out. You never know some of the people that are going to trial may win. Most people that are going to receive trial date haven’t gotten them yet they are not scheduled yet. Although some people that had their case remanded. And we’re no longer part of this MDL have gotten court dates for trial. So what you are saying is not factual it is what you believe not facts. I am suspicious of who you are.
Waki
Has anyone consulted legal funding for their settlements? And what is the interest? My attorney told me it will be another month or two before the distribution of funds. (Seigal and Weiss)
Debbie
Yes I agree with Laurie I appreciate what is being posted by Joe but it is too hard to understand it’s like a copy and paste type thing. I appreciate your input though Joe. When I have called my lawyer in the past he has always gotten back to me. Pester your lawyers if you have to. Remember they are working for YOU. You have the right to ask them questions and they have the duty to get back to you in a timely manner. Ignoring your phone calls? I wouldn’t stand for that! Otherwise, you can tell them you would like to switch attorneys and believe me you will get a phone call back within hours if they are a legitimate attorney. Remember, they are taking 40% of your settlement, so they owe you phone calls and emails and letters to keep you abreast of what’s going on. You shouldn’t have to rely solely on this website to get your info. That’s just not right. And I do appreciate this website. I can tell you that the disbursements if there are any will be by the end of the year or in 2018. I know that for sure. My attorney said 2018 but we’ll see.
Kevin
My brother died in the dialysis chair back in Jan of 2010, I have been hanging on since I started this stupid painful journey,(wish I never have) I would not be in the middle of the sh_t. But sucked in now. All I want is just one answer and that is just what if anything I am going to get. My Lawyers keep telling me oh you have all the correct checked boxes for a settlement. OK what is it?? I don’t even care anymore if and when you send a check. I just want to end this a close this horrible part of my life and move on. He was my only sibling and was only 47. JUST PLEASE END THIS MADDNESS ALREADY SO WE CAN LET OUR FAMILY REST IN PEACE NOW. PLEASE I BEG OF YOU!!!!
Angie
Thank you Joe….that was beautiful.
Peaches
I just want to give my condolences to everyone who has lost someone. For a while and currently I depend on Joe for updated info on this lawsuit.I lost my mom. I’m in category 1 my lawyer is also vague with info and him and his secretary try to minimize my situation the truth is I’m so tired. My sister and I are so tired I hope and pray this night mare ends soon
Laurie
Angela my attorney will not contact me unless I e-mail her and she responses in about a week. She is as frustrated with this whole thing as I am. She is beginning to submit now for the settlement. If you read back I posted what she told me. She believes they will move forward with the settlement but how long that will take is beyond me at this point. Joe while I appreciate all the information that you post here, it has become more confusing for people as I see it. Contact your attorneys and keep pestering them for answers. If they have the answers they will and should give it if not….its just a waiting game. DO NOT GIVE UP! I know its a small settlement offer compared to what we all should get but its the principle of the thing now! Its a small step but its still at step. We have to keep moving forward and hope and pray that some good will come of all this BS that we are getting. I pray for all of us and hope we are coming to and end to this legal BS.
Rick
Angela, I’m in the same boat haven’t heard anything from my lawyers since the beginning of the year when thy wanted me to opt in..
Judy
‘@ Angela, not at all my attorney always get back to me be it email, phone call or mail not sure why your attorney is ignoring you
Amanda
Yes Angela my attorney refuses to call me back so all the information I have found out is what’s on here.
Angela
My attorney’s refuse to answer any of my calls~emails, is anyone else experiencing this with their attorney’s? My last contact with them was when they told me to opt in or obtain a new litigator for my case aproximately a year ago. I guess they realized they won’t be cashing in on my case! I have not recieved any letters or information as to where my case stands. Just curious to know if other’s are getting the silent treatment as well?
Joe
Yes Angie happy birthday to your father. I hope they will let me put this link through it is from YouTube and it is wonderful it has nothing to do with this case however. https://youtu.be/6TcxA_7_fi8
Stinky
Just got this information. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings (FMCH) may elect to void the settlement if the 97% threshold is not achieved or if plain- tiffs’ non-participation falls into suspect patterns. For cases not participating in the settlement and not dismissed under Lone Pine orders, active litigation may resume in the discre- tion of their respective courts. The deadline for plaintiffs to elect participation in the settlement has passed, although the plaintiff committee and FMCH continue to entertain late requests for good cause by individual participants. Based on participation elections already received and Lone Pine orders already issued, the plaintiff committee and FMCH expect, and have advised the courts that they expect, the settlement to be consummated. However, because of difficulties and delays in assembling and verifying individual participation elections and in the courts’ processing of individual Lone Pine dismissals for the required number of cases, the committee and FMCH have agreed that consummation will occur promptly upon suffi- cient verification of fulfillment of the participation threshold, providing only that consummation will not be required before June 1, 2017 and must occur by February 28, 2018. Court approval of the schedule revision is expected. FMCH believes that a significant number of cases, in vari- ous jurisdictions, will not participate in the settlement and will require some level of additional litigation activity in their respective trial courts to resolve. Appeals by plaintiffs are pending in the two bellwether cases (Ogburn and Dial) that have been tried, in both of which jury verdicts were entered in FMCH’s favor. FMCH’s affected insurers have agreed to fund US$220 million of the settlement fund if the settlement is not voided, with a reservation of rights regarding certain coverage issues from freestyles quarterly earnings (by freestyle directly)
Joe
Remember this order I posted months ago there was never any extension after the order I posted. So I believe they know already and it has been funded. Now the claims administrator is making his point value for the cases. It will not take until 2018 I know some people said it’s been extended back then but I don’t think that was ever true There would’ve had to of been a court order by the judge for a extension and there never was. Extension of Settlement Program’s Opt-In and Voiding Deadlines1813 ALLOWED and adopted as follows: January 13, 2017 – Date by which plaintiffs may opt in to the settlement program; January 18, 2017 – Date by which all opt in data and documents will be supplied to Fresenius; May 10, 2017 – Date by which Fresenius may elect to void pursuant to the terms of the MSA; and, May 17, 2017 – Date by which Fresenius shall fund the settlement if not voided.
Debra
My attorney submitted mine yesterday. They just needed to verify if my husband was ever on a kidney transplant list before they submitted it. She said that they will hopefully know more about his qualification status in a few months.
nancy
I guess my atty has lost her voice and fingers dropped off sd I have heard nothing
Joe
Lola, thank you for that information. I believe you are correct. I just have not heard anything official. I know they had until July 28, 2017 for 3 cases to opt-in or comply with the Lonepine order . I think most people suspected it had been approved. You’re the only one that had their lawyer verify that. Like I said I have not heard anything official but I take your word for it. Even if for some reason it was not approved or triggered they are still going to except the people that did opt-in there would be no document submission to the claims administrator if it was not approved or they did not except the people that opted in for settlement. Whatever the case may be the settlement was not voided.
Angie
Happy Birthday to my dad…he would have been 73 today. All I really ever wanted to know is if he suffered. No amount of money will tell me what I want to know.
Debbie
Just talked to my attorney Monday and he said they don’t know what category anyone will fall into until they get all the claims evaluated by the claims examiner. They do have the go ahead to start submitting the claims and will have the final assignment of your point value by the end of the year with disbursements being next year. He actually called me this time!
Joe
These issues have been resolved but I wanted to show everyone why this settlement was taking so long. This was a Motion for extension from the plaintiffs of course again not the full motion this was a couple months ago. 1.”Most patients for whom electronic medical record information was unavailable treated at clinics acquired by Fresenius and had alleged dates of injury that pre-dated either the acquisition or the conversion of those clinics to Fresenius’ electronic data system.” 2.”Though the decedent’s treating clinic is presently a Fresenius clinic, it was acquired by Fresenius in 2012, two years after the decedent’s death. Because the decedent was not an active patient at the clinic when Fresenius acquired it, the decedent’s medical records remained with the prior owner. Fresenius reported to the PEC that it has no records for this decedent on September 12, 2016. It is unclear why Plaintiff continues to believe that Fresenius possesses relevant records, but in any event, he waited until March 17, 2017 to ask Fresenius about its response to his May 26, 2016 settlement-related request.” 3.”Plaintiff asserts that Fresenius failed to produce necessary medical record information for decedent Despite Plaintiff’s allegation to the contrary, this decedent’s treating clinic, Renal Center is not affiliated with Fresenius. Accordingly, Fresenius does not possess any of this decedent’s medical records. In the Motion to Extend, Plaintiff refers to a purportedly deficient production of medical records that she claims was made to her by Fresenius. In fact, these records were not produced by Fresenius but rather by the Plaintiff to Fresenius. Notably, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff believed the treating clinic in this case to be an affiliate of Fresenius, Plaintiff did not submit a settlement-related request for medical record information to Fresenius. Rather, as the Motion to Extend indicates, Plaintiff’s last request for medical records was made directly to the treating clinic – again, a non-Fresenius facility – nearly four years ago.” 4.”As to decedents , Plaintiffs explicitly assert that the decedents’ non-Fresenius treating clinics have failed to produce medical records, despite Plaintiffs’ purportedly diligent efforts to obtain them. Clearly, given that the treating clinics at issue in these cases are unaffiliated with Fresenius, Fresenius does not have access to any of the relevant medical records. Regardless, Plaintiffs cannot credibly claim that they acted diligently in attempting to acquire the decedent’s medical records, given that (1) as to, the Motion to Extend indicates that Plaintiffs last requested medical records from the treating clinics approximately two years ago, and (2) as to all three decedents, the Motion to Extend – filed April 3, 2017 – marks the first time that Plaintiffs alerted either Fresenius or the PEC of their challenges in obtaining the medical record information necessary to assess their cases for settlement eligibility.”
Anthony
I told you in the beginning we was robbed when they went to trial and lost out of 12,000 cases you telling me they couldn’t find one to fit the criteria to win I was at dialysis I a Cardiac Arrest Woke up 2 days later in the hospital.im lucky to be alive. We were sold out I just want to move on
Arthur
Laurie even if they walk away the cases don’t disappear. They will still have to try all these cases one by one. Unless the Judge dismisses all of them which I doubt. Supposedly the first trial cost about 600k between both parties. That’s why the settlement came about. Back to the drawing board for Fresenius if they walk away.
Laurie
This is what my lawyer sent me today…..Good morning Laurie. Sorry for the confusion—yes, the settlement was “accepted” but if the 97% requirement is not met, Fresenius can choose to walk away. That’s the decision we are awaiting. If the numbers are close enough, I think Fresenius will choose to move forward with the settlement process. I am forever the optimist. I have nothing left to say about any of this because I can not waste my time and energy on this obsurd, ridiculous process anymore. Its physically and mentally debilitating for me and just a major slap in the face to the victims who are still alive. God will judge them all in the end and I pray he is more just they they were to us!
Joe
Pre-existing conditions have already been addressed. A Daubert hearing on pre-existing conditions already took place. The judge basically determined pre-existing conditions still qualify. If your case has not already been dismissed it won’t be. The judge is the only one that can dismiss anyone’s case. The claims administrator has nothing to do with any type of trial. He definitely is not a judge or any part of a Jury. He simply determines the point value of your case. The claims administrator could determine your case has zero points but that is very unlikely. If you had zero points your case would have already been dismissed. The litigations that have been taking please resolve around the alternative payment fund category #3 and the opt-out cases.Most of it had to do with product identification probably some other issues also. Category one was a in-depth process they needed proof before you could be put into category one. They would not have just speculated and put you into category one without proof to back it up. If you are going to trial pre-existing conditions will definitely play a role in the outcome of your case. That will be determined by a judge or jury though.
Lola
My attorney said 97% has been reached and the settlement is going forward. Claims are expected to be submitted until late September but various deadlines may be extended. Payments are not expected to be available for some time.
Carolyn
And please realize that it’s my own personal feeling. Truly not directed towards anyone else. They need to pay for the loss of our loved ones and we could all use a bit of help to ease our hearts and struggle in life.
Joe
I only posted part of those orders because I thought it was good information. The orders are quite a few months old. I wouldn’t read into them to deeply. The opt-in document that you signed is still valid they cannot change it. If they did you would have to re-sign a new opt-in form. So the 24 hour cardiac arrest after use is still valid and the cardiac event the judge was talking about refers to a cardiac arrest that is what he is referring to. It had to be a cardiac arrest not a heart attack or some other type of cardiac event. There maybe other information The plaintiffs lawyers needed like product identification and that other stuff I posted before. Category one plaintiffs lawyers already have all that information, and documents that were needed. Some of the claims that fell into the $1500 category still needed product identification and some other information when the lone Pine order dates were given out.That all has been resolved now. At this point. They either got it or their cases have been dismissed. Some people were filing and stating that their loved one had a cardiac arrest after the use of the drug but the truth was they never use the drug or had no proof of it. Or the timeline didn’t add up or some other inconsistencies. Like the judge said in the order there are many Meritless cases in this MDL. The lone Pine order was basically for the people that did not have the documentation needed and still wanted to file a claim or receive a trial date because they did not opt in. Don’t get me wrong I believe there are some cases that were and are valid but were dismissed anyway.
Carolyn
And what if your loved one was hooked up to life support for a week and then I had to pull the plug? And God bless anyone who’s had to make that decision. It’s.. horrible. And yes. I opted in and totally expect nothing. But again.. I only got involved in this soap opera to make sure my darling Bill’s suffering was for naught. His name will be remembered and this is my point. No amount of money will every do justice for howhe suffered. And if by some miracle something is granted. I’m locking it into trust funds for the grands. Personally,. I would feel dirty to reap a profit over the loss of my loved one. But that’s me. Fresenius and granuflo and big pharma needs to bleed the way we have. But this settlement offer is a joke. They need to pay the 250 million to each and every one who suffered a loss. The settlement they offered? They have collected that much and more in interest from the bank. It’s not costing them a dime. Greedy. $&'”&6$- $_$56″**:&. Bastards
Amanda
I thought that death within 24 hrs and cardiac event was one of the criteria to qualify for the case 1 settlement.. JOE do you know any info on this
Laurie
SO it sounds like if the patient died, there is no way to determine if the patient died from the fatal overdose of solution or by pre-existing conditions. Which means, to me anyway, that those cases will not be in the settlement. Unless they have concrete proof of the levels in their system prior to death. So those families of the deceased patient are out of luck getting justice. That seems to be the case here. That is why I have given up on this case.
Joe
They would not have a case Census and trial scheduling if the settlement has not been triggered. So the motion is not for any other extension. Its Only for The plaintiffs lawyers to agree to the defendants case census and the trial schedule for the people that did not opt in and if their case has not been dismissed. The litigation part is over there will be no more summary judgment no more Lonepine dismissals. The litigation part of this lawsuit is over. They were not asking for a extension to the litigation. They were just asking for a extension for the plaintiffs to respond to the case Census and trial scheduling from Fresenius. These are minor things and should be resolved shortly if not already. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what this extension was for. They were not extending anything except for the approval by the plaintiffs lawyers of the Case Census and the trial scheduling for the opt out plaintiffs That survived dismissal. They cannot trigger the settlement until all cases one way or the other have been resolved either they opted-in or they are getting a trial date. If a few cases did not get the trial date like they were supposed to the settlement will not be triggered until A trial date is given to them. After that happens and the plaintiffs lawyers sign off on it the settlement will be triggered officially.
Debbie
Laurie you are absolutely right. Fresenius is a billion dollar company and that much money gives you power and that much power gives you more avenues and opens more doors for Fresenius than we little people could ever imagine. So Big money=Big power. I’m sure They could stall this as long as they want. I wonder if they are burning up the money with attorney fees too. Some of those big law firms charge up to $600 per hour or more.
Debra
My attorney just shared with me that the settlement has not officially been triggered. But they were given access to the portal to begin submitting claims. She is submitting claims as we spoke.
Joe
These are clips from the lone Pine order. Public record,it gives some numbers out. They may have changed to a certain extent, that is unknown however. Clips from the order below. This order is old but at least to give you a idea of how many cases total there will be. Order clips: “This point is underscored by the fact that nearly 1,300 cases have been dismissed by stipulation in this MDL and related jurisdictions since the parties reached a settlement in principle in February 2016” “The Opposition filed by the law firm of Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP (Doc. #1804) applies to all cases filed by the law firm in this MDL (249 individual cases). Of those cases, Hagens Berman has already opted in 115 cases to the global settlement presumably based on a review of the merits of the cases and belying the contention that they have not had ample opportunity to obtain information necessary for a critical review of specific causation. Similarly, the Sill Law Group, having also filed an Opposition to the Motion (Doc. #1801), has already opted in 104 cases to the global settlement program.” “Plaintiffs also suggest that it is premature to consider how cases that have opted out of the global settlement program should be handled until “after we know if the pending settlement is triggered” because, “[i]f the settlement gets funded, the volume of unsettled cases is likely to be only 10% or less of the initial multidistrict case load” and such volume will be manageable without the proposed Lone Pine Order. See Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Opp., Dkt. No. 1804, at 5. Ten percent of the multidistrict case load would still amount to over 400 cases, a number of cases that could in and of itself require a Lone Pine order to effectively manage.”
Joe
Here is a clip from the lone Pine order. It is public record but I not to post the whole order it is way too large. “Against such a backdrop, this litigation presents precisely the type of situation where the court’s inherent case management authority should be exercised. This MDL has been pending for years; general discovery – including the production of tens of millions of pages of documents, numerous general liability expert reports, and approximately 85 depositions – has long-since concluded; and case-specific discovery has been conducted on twenty cases selected for the bellwether pool. Moreover, after conducting case-specific discovery, the PEC dismissed 8 out of 10 Fresenius selections and the first bellwether trial in the related state court litigation – a plaintiff selection and presumably one they viewed to be a relatively strong case – resulted in a defense verdict for lack of specific causation. This set of circumstances strongly suggests that (1) a substantial number of meritless cases remain pending in this MDL and (2) it is only by looking to specific causation that one can identify which cases fall into that category. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ alternative proposal that the court should merely require them to demonstrate product identification is wholly inadequate. Plaintiffs contend that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to require them to provide expert reports on specific causation because they “allege concrete injury – typically, death because of a fatal cardiac event – against the sole manufacturer of only two products.” Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Opp., Doc. # 1804, at 4. Plaintiffs’ argument ignores some critical facts: out of the wide array of so-called “fatal cardiac events” alleged, at this stage of the case plaintiffs must acknowledge that only specific types of cardiac injuries could arguably support their premised theory of liability. Further, GranuFlo® or NaturaLyte® can only be considered a potential cause of such injury if it occurs within a narrow window of time following dialysis treatment.”
Joe
So I went over the opposition to the lone Pine order. This is what I found out they expected 10% not to opt in which in their words Will be 400 cases. So that means there are 4000 cases expected in the settlement. I looked over pending actions and there are 4360 pending actions. So my understanding would be that total settlement cases are 4360. I have no idea out of those 4360 how many are in each category. I can’t guarantee those numbers but I am pretty sure they are correct. Like I said I do not know cases per category . I have no idea about that yet. So Debbie looks like you may have been correct, but those cases are not all in category one from my understanding.
Laurie
Its become a farce now. It will never end as long as Fresenius has the money and the high powered lawyers to keep postponing and extending. Might as well just give up and move on because we little people do not have the power. Its all big business and the almighty dollar. My mother is gone so it will not have any effect for her. I just want justice which will never come as you can see. I will just write this off and move on. Fresenius has won people lets face it. Wish all health, happiness and luck.
Debbie
Wow does this mean its extended again after July 31st. Does this surprise anyone? This was supposed to be all settled last summer now it’s a year later. Good thing we didn’t hold our breath. My best friends father just bled to death from a fall he took while he was on the blood thinner xarelto. A severe brain bleed. Xarelto is known to cause brain bleeds and there is no antidote for it. she’s so upset so I told her to immediately contact a lawyer. She will probably end up with much more than we did and my father died too.
Judy
How do you know 97% have been reached this time?
Judy
Then the forms finally get to the claims administration? Do anybody know for sure?
Joe
So they responded to the Motion. The case Census and Discovery/and trail schedule. It looks like there are a few issues. I believe it has to do with the service Certificate of Service pursuant to LR 5.2 but not 100% positive about that. Monday, July 31, 2017 1900 respm Response to Motion Mon 5:58 PM RESPONSE to Motion re1899 MOTION for Extension of Time to July 31, 2017 to to file a Response to FMCNA’s Census Report and Proposed Discovery/Trial Schedule for Surviving Cases Opting Out of Global Settlement filed by Lola Marie Hearn, Anticipated Personal Representative of the Estate of Lola Mae McBride, Max Riben. (Booker, Molly) Those few people are either not in the Census or are not part of the trial schedule.not positive about that but that is my guess.
Lola
97% has been reached
Carolyn
Well, it’s July 31. When have they extended it to this time? The Twelfth of Never is my guess.
Joe
mona, no your lawyer could not offer you a pay out that would be illegal.
mona
Joe; Is it possible that the lawyer would pffer you a payout.
Cynthia
Thank you Joe for your valuable information. Please keep updating us on the progress of this lawsuit.
1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 27

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

Share Your Story With Our Community

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

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.

MORE TOP STORIES

NFL Sports Gambling Lawsuit Claims Live Game Data Fueled FanDuel, DraftKings Addiction
A public health advocacy group and two Pennsylvania men have filed a lawsuit against FanDuel, DraftKings and the NFL over the use of data for addictive, live in-game microbets.
Recalled Omnipod 5 Injuries Skyrocket, Prompting Removal of Insulin Pump Pods
Insulet is removing certain Omnipod 5 insulin pump pods from use following a surge in reports of insulin delivery failures that raise risks of diabetic ketoacidosis and other serious complications.
Lawsuit Claims Abbott, Boston Scientific SCS Pre-Market Approval Caused Permanent Injuries
A Florida woman’s lawsuit alleges that Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific altered their SCS device batteries, firmware and stimulation features without adequate safety testing approved by the FDA.