Defendant Pharmaceutical Company, in its zeal to rush to the market and displace the longstanding "standard" leader in the field, the Pharmaceutical Company advertised and promoted its medicine as being "superior" to the market leader, which had successfully controlled Plaintiff's medical condition for years.  The Pharmaceutical Company sold its product on the basis that "one dose fits all," did not require painful and invasive monitoring, and had no dietary restrictions, unlike the market leader.  The Defendant Pharmaceutical Company knew, however, that the medication was not appropriate for all types of patients and its "one dose fits all" marketing campaign was in fact dangerously misleading.  Despite knowing these risks, the Defendant Pharmaceutical Company did not change its advertising, labeling, or warnings and continued to market its drug to physicians as being both "superior" at preventing strokes and also being "easier" to manage.  Plaintiff and his doctor relied on these misrepresentations when they made the decision to switch from the market leader to Defendant's new drug.  Approximately six weeks after switching to the medication manufactured by the Defendant, Plaintiff suffered an embolic stroke, the very thing the medication was designed to prevent.  

As a result of his stroke, Plaintiff lost feeling in his hand and sensitivity to touch, and was unable to continue to run his business.  He also had to undergo a painful and dangerous surgical procedure in an attempt to prevent further strokes into the future.

During the lawsuit, the Defendant Pharmaceutical Company denied that its drug had failed and instead argued that Plaintiff's medical condition for which he was taking the drug simply caused the stroke to happen anyway; that no drug was perfect; and that it did not knowingly mislead consumers with its advertising and labeling.  Plaintiff, in discovery, uncovered documents that showed that Defendant's in-house physicians had serious concerns about the lack of monitoring/testing, but those concerns were swept under the rug in a move that put profits over people.  

Ultimately, Defendant settled Plaintiff's lawsuit, paying the highest single settlement in California not involving a wrongful death for this particular drug.  Due to the size of the settlement and the nature of the allegations, the settlement was made confidential.