March 18, 2004: Canada Baycol Case Reaches Tentative Settlement
Bayer reached a tentative settlement with a number of Canadian citizens who brought legal claims for injuries caused by the recalled anti-cholesterol drug Baycol. If approved by the court, under the deal Bayer would pay about $10,000 for settlement of typical cases, and a maximum of $175,000 in the most serious claims.
January, 2004: Bayer Has Settled More Than 2,000 Baycol-Related Claims
Bayer AG, the manufacturer of anti-cholesterol drug Baycol, says that as of early January 2004 it has settled 2,059 Baycol-related claims out-of-court since the drug was recalled in August 2001. Bayer also announced that it still faces over 10,000 lawsuits in the U.S., filed by people who claim to have been injured as a result of taking Baycol.
December 15, 2003: Illinois Judge Declines Nationwide Baycol Class Action
A state court judge in Illinois denied certification of a nationwide class action composed of former users of Baycol, Bayer's recalled anti-cholesterol drug. The judge found too many state-to-state variances in the laws at issue in the claims -- specifically consumer fraud, medical monitoring, and breach of implied warranty. The main plaintiff in the case was seeking to represent a class of thousands of people who suffered injury after taking Baycol.
December 12, 2003: Baycol MDL Judge Halts State Class Actions
The judge overseeing federal multidistrict Baycol litigation against Bayer Corp. put an end to potential state court class action suits in Florida and Michigan. Although class representatives in those states argued otherwise, Judge Michael J. David decided that the dollar amount in controversy easily exceeded the $75,000 threshold at which state court cases are preempted by the federal court's jurisdiction, meaning that the Florida and Michigan plaintiffs will be forced to proceed in the federal MDL action.
December 12, 2003: Baycol Judge Denies Bayer's Access to Doctors
The judge overseeing federal multidistrict Baycol litigation denied Bayer's request to carry out private, informal interviews with the doctors who treated plaintiffs in the case, based in part on the risk that private medical information might be improperly revealed.
Contact a qualified product liability attorney to make sure your rights are protected.