Current Cases

On this page, you’ll find details on current lawsuits filed against GlaxoSmithKline for birth defects allegedly caused by prenatal exposure to Zofran.

We will update this information as new developments become public.

Ongoing Zofran Birth Defect Lawsuits

Dozens of families across the country have filed civil lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

All claim that GSK illegally marketed its popular anti-nausea drug to pregnant women, without conducting any clinical trials to determine Zofran’s safety for developing babies. In fact, they claim that GSK has been aware of Zofran’s association with birth defects since at least as early as 1992. Plaintiffs allege that GSK continued marketing the drug as a “safe and effective” treatment for morning sickness, despite having knowledge to the contrary.

Prescribed Zofran during the first trimester of pregnancy, these women eventually delivered babies with severe birth defects. Now, they claim that Zofran caused those congenital abnormalities, and demand compensation from the drug’s manufacturer.

Case 2:15-cv-00709-PD: America’s First Zofran Lawsuit

On February 12, 2015, a mother from Minnesota filed America’s first Zofran lawsuit. Her complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the case number 2:15-cv-00709-PD.

To view this complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: 2:15-cv-00709-PD

Two Children Born With Congenital Heart Defects

Plaintiff alleges that she gave birth to two children who suffered from congenital heart defects. Her first child, B.F., was born premature in 2004 and subsequently diagnosed with a cardiac septal defect, or “hole in the heart.” B.F. also evidenced a severe developmental delay.

In 2006, plaintiff gave birth to her second child, T.F. Premature like her sister, T.F. was diagnosed with a cardiac defect as well. T.F.’s defect caused significant respiratory problems, and the child was put under 24-hour monitoring. T.F. also suffered from abnormally slow development.

Plaintiff Claims She Was Prescribed Zofran During Both Pregnancies

During the first trimester of both pregnancies, the plaintiff in docket 2:15-cv-00709PD experienced extreme morning sickness and was prescribed Zofran. Neither her physicians nor GlaxoSmithKline warned her of ondansetron’s potential to inhibit fetal development. Had she known of the studies linking Zofran to birth defects, plaintiff states that she would not have taken the drug.

Neither the plaintiff’s family, nor that of her children’s father has a history of birth defects, and a genetic test conducted on the plaintiff showed no sign of genetic abnormalities.

Case 1:15-cv-10429: Plaintiff Claims Zofran Caused 8 Birth Defects

The country’s second Zofran lawsuit was filed on February 16, 2015 by a mother from Massachusetts. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court of Massachusetts, under the case number 1:15-cv-10429.

To view this complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: 1:15-cv-10429

Plaintiff’s Child Allegedly Suffered Numerous Birth Defects

Plaintiff alleges that her child, A.S., suffered numerous birth defects after she took Zofran for severe morning sickness during her first trimester. Born in 2000, A.S. was quickly diagnosed with an atrial septal defect, aortic arch hypoplasia and right ventricular hypertension.

Soon after, her doctors found evidence of other defects, including hearing loss, webbed toes, sensitivity to light, inguinal hernia and facial dysmorphia (another term for a cleft palate).

Mother Prescribed Zofran “Off-Label” For Morning Sickness

A.S.’s mother suffered from severe nausea and vomiting early in her pregnancy, and was prescribed Zofran to alleviate the symptoms. In her complaint, the plaintiff notes that she had no knowledge of Zofran’s damaging effects on fetal development at the time. If she had known of the drug’s dangers, she would not have taken it.

After genetic testing, it was determined that plaintiff had no genetic anomalies that could have contributed to her child’s defects. Nor does she have any family history of such defects. Court documents also state that plaintiff delivered a healthy baby, free of birth defects, prior to carrying A.S.

The Devastating Effects Of A.S.’s Birth Defects

As of 2015, A.S. has been forced to undergo thirteen surgical procedures. In addition, she suffers from developmental delays, and through no fault of her own, has endured a diminished quality of life.

As the parent and guardian of A.S., plaintiff’s complaint claims compensation for:

  • past medical expenses and those in the future
  • economic losses
  • pain and suffering
  • emotional distress
  • punitive damages

Plaintiff also demands damages for “loss of consortium,” which are meant to compensate families for the loss of companionship a loved one’s injury or disease has caused.

Case R615761042: California Mother Claims Zofran Exposure Resulted In Heart Birth Defect

A mother from Oakland, California filed suit against GlaxoSmithKline on March 4, 2015. Her case was filed under case number R615761042 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda.

To view this complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: RG15761042

Allegations In California’s First Zofran Lawsuit

As in previous lawsuits, case R615761042’s plaintiff alleges that she was prescribed Zofran to alleviate the symptoms of morning sickness during her first trimester. In 2010, plaintiff’s son, named J.S. in the complaint, was born with a heart defect called supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).

Plaintiff alleges that there is no history of SVT in her family, and that she received no warning as to Zofran’s potential link to birth defects when the drug was prescribed. She continues to say that if she had known of the medication’s risks, she would not have taken it.

Claims For Compensation

The complaint claims that Zofran caused J.S’s birth defect. Supraventricular tachycardia is a condition marked by abnormal electrical activity that causes a rapid heart rate. As a result, the heart is not allowed to “rest” between beats nor can the chambers adequately fill with blood.

Plaintiff claims that her son was prescribed Digoxin to alleviate the symptoms of SVT, which include:

  • rapid breathing
  • shortness of breath
  • shallow breathing

As compensation, the plaintiff demands compensatory damages to reimburse her son for suffering a permanent birth defect, physical pain, emotional anguish and the need for lifelong medical care. Plaintiff also contends that she suffered “severe emotional distress and suffering” herself as a result of her son’s birth defect.

Case CGC-15-544524: Claimaints Allege That Zofran Led To Rare Congenital Heart Defect

On March 5, 2015, California saw its second Zofran-related lawsuit filed. For the nation, this is the fourth claim brought against GlaxoSmithKline for birth defects allegedly caused by Zofran. Under case number CGC-15-544524, parents filed suit against the pharmaceutical manufacturer in the Superior Court for the State of California, San Francisco County.

To view this complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: CGC-15-544524

Notably, the suit was filed with the help of two plaintiffs’ attorneys, including Ms. Elizabeth Graham, one of Monheit Law’s own partners in investigating claims of Zofran-related birth defects.

Allegations Against GlaxoSmithKline

Plaintiffs allege that the mother was prescribed Zofran early in her first trimester to treat the symptoms of morning sickness. She delivered her son, named B.G. in the complaint, in 2009. B.G. was soon diagnosed with a rare heart defect, bicuspid aorta stenosis.

What Is Bicuspid Aorta Stenosis?

The aorta is a large artery that carries oxygen-rich blood from the heart to the rest of the body. The aorta and heart are separated by a valve that can open and close to allow blood flow as needed. In healthy human hearts, this aortic valve has three “leaflets,” small flaps that form a barrier but open wide to release blood.

In babies born with bicuspid aorta stenosis, this valve has only two leaflets. Overtime, this defect impedes heart function, although children may experience no symptoms until later in life.

Claims For Compensation

Plaintiffs claim that there is no history of birth defects in either of their families. They continue to allege that their son “will require continued monitoring and future surgeries to repair or replace his damaged valve.”

As a result, the plaintiffs demand compensatory and punitive damages from GlaxoSmithKline. Their stated damages include medical expenses, past and future, as well as emotional distress suffered as a result of their son’s birth defect.

Case 1:15-cv-00026-SPW-CSO: Parents Claim Zofran Caused Cleft Palate & Lip

On April 4th, 2015, a family from Montana filed America’s fifth Zofran birth defects lawsuit. On behalf of their child, parents brought legal claims against GlaxoSmithKline in the United States District Court of Montana. Their case was filed under docket number 1:15-cv-00026-SPW-CSO.

To view this complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: 1:15-cv-00026-SPW-CSO

Allegations Made In America’s Fifth Zofran Lawsuit

As an introduction, the complaint notes that Zofran was developed to treat only patients “afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable — that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients.”

Court documents continue by reiterating the allegations first raised by the US Department of Justice – that GlaxoSmithKline “marketed Zofran ‘off label’ as a safe and effective treatment for the very common side effect of a normal pregnancy [:] ‘morning sickness.’ ” The complaint contends that the manufacturer’s allegedly fraudulent marketing of Zofran continued in spite of the fact that GSK “had never once undertaken a single study on the effects of this powerful drug on a pregnant mother or her growing child in utero.”

But as in the four previously-filed suits, plaintiffs in 1:15-cv-00026-SPW-CSO make additional claims. Specifically, that GlaxoSmtihKline allegedly “knew that Zofran was unsafe for ingestion by expectant mothers.” The complaint mentions studies performed in the 1980s on pregnant animals, and claims that these tests “revealed evidence of toxicity, intrauterine deaths and malformations in offspring.” Plaintiffs allege that “GSK did not disclose this information to pregnant women or their physicians.”

Damages Allegedly Suffered By Plaintiff’s Child

In the complaint, plaintiff claims that she was prescribed Zofran early in the first trimester as a treatment for the symptoms of morning sickness. In 1998, plaintiff’s child, a girl named in the complaint as M.M., was born with a cleft lip and palate.

Notably, this is the first Zofran-related lawsuit to seek compensation for a congenital orofacial cleft. In 2012, researchers funded by the US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention found that women who had been prescribed ondansetron during the first trimester were 2.37 times more likely to deliver babies with a cleft palate.

As a result of her birth defect, plaintiffs claim that M.M. has “been forced to undergo ten surgeries within her first sixteen years of life and more are planned and likely.” The complaint states that the congenital anomaly “impairs her development and enjoyment of a normal life at home and at school.”

As restitution, plaintiffs bring claims for “compensatory and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief in an effort to ensure that similarly situated mothers-to-be are fully informed about the risks, benefits and alternatives attending drugs marketed for use in pregnant women.”

Case 5:15-34: Zofran Claimed As Cause Of Numerous Congenital Defects

On April 17, 2015, a plaintiff living in Texarkana, Texas filed America’s sixth lawsuit claiming that GlaxoSmithKline’s drug Zofran caused her child to be born with birth defects. The case was filed in the United States District Court of Texas, Texarkana Division under case number 5:15-34.

To view this complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: 5:15-34

According to court documents, plaintiff was prescribed Zofran “to alleviate the symptoms of Morning Sickness while pregnant.” Her child, named B.C.W., “was born in 2014 with numerous congenital defects.”

Plaintiff claims that directly after birth, B.C.W. “was placed on a ventilator after suffering from difficulty breathing, and B.C.W. remained in the N.I.C.U. [Neonatal Intensive Care Unit] due to his inability to ingest any type of nutrition.” While B.C.W. is now only eight months old, the child has been diagnosed with:

  • heart murmur
  • fluid on the brain (a condition commonly referred to as hydrocephaly by health professionals)
  • thickened arteries
  • multiple developmental delays

The complaint states that “surgeries are anticipated” to correct B.C.W’s birth defects, which “impair his development and enjoyment of a normal life at home due to substantial developmental delays.”

New Allegations Surface In Sixth Zofran Birth Defect Lawsuit

Although the complaint is similar in many allegations to those filed previously, it makes several new claims.

After alleging, in line with charges filed by the US Department of Justice in 2012, that GlaxoSmithKline marketed Zofran to physicians as a “safe and effective” treatment for morning sickness, the complaint claims that “between 1992 and 2011, [GlaxoSmithKline] avoided conducting studies or trials because they would have hampered its marketing of Zofran and decreased profits.”

It is a matter of public record that GlaxoSmithKline has never carried out studies in order to investigate Zofran’s potential effects during pregnancy. In this new complaint, plaintiff alleges that the company intentionally avoided performing such a study “because it had knowledge of the drug’s toxicity and the studies would have impeded the drug’s marketability and profits.”

Plaintiff alleges that GlaxoSmithKline had begun “receiving reports of birth defects associated with the use of Zofran by pregnant women” as early as 1992. In her complaint, she claims that the company “has received more than 200” such reports to date, but further alleges that “the number of events actually reported to GSK was only a small fraction of the actual incidents.”

Court documents state that “GSK underreported the hundreds of reports of major birth defects associated with prenatal exposure [to Zofran] that it received to the FDA or any representative body of the United States government.” Plaintiff claims that GlaxoSmithKline was aware of these alleged birth defect reports, along with at least three epidemiological studies that have found an association between Zofran and birth defects. She alleges that the company failed to warn the public and health community of its drug’s potential effects on unborn babies.

Managers At GSK Pled Guilty To “Bribing Chinese Doctors” In 2014

In relation to GlaxoSmithKline’s alleged off-label promotion of Zofran, the complaint enumerates claims made by the US Department of Justice in a case ultimately settled for $3 billion. You can find a detailed description of the federal government’s allegations here.

But this plaintiff is the first to note a simultaneous investigation of GlaxoSmithKline’s business practices conducted by Chinese authorities.

On September 19, 2014, the New York Times reported that five of GlaxoSmithKline’s corporate managers had pled guilty to charges of “bribing hospitals and doctors [and] channeling illicit kickbacks through travel agencies and pharmaceutical industry associations.” In a public press release, GlaxoSmithKline stated that it fully accepted “the facts and evidence of the investigation” and was fined more than $500 million.

Case 1:15-11627: Severe Birth Defects Forced Plaintiff To Terminate Pregnancy

On April 17, 2015, a woman from Randolph, Massachusetts filed the nation’s seventh Zofran lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline. The case was filed in the United States District Court of Massachusetts, Eastern Division, under the case number 1:15-11627.

To view this complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: 1:15-11627

Plaintiff claims that she was prescribed Zofran to treat the symptoms of morning sickness during early pregnancy. Soon after, a routine medical exam revealed “severe and life-threatening defects, including a severe abdominal malformation.” Left with no other choice, plaintiff was forced to terminate her pregnancy. On October 16, 2013, her unborn baby died in utero.

This complaint is the first in which a plaintiff lost an unborn baby due to birth defects that she claims were caused by fetal exposure to Zofran. The claimant in case 1:15-11627 seeks compensation for “severe and ongoing pain, distress, suffering and expense.”

Case 4:15-cv-00284-BRW: Arkansas Parents Say Zofran Caused Son’s Cleft Lip

On May 21, 2015, a family living outside Little Rock, Arkansas filed a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, claiming that prenatal exposure to Zofran caused their unborn son to develop a cleft lip. Their claim was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division under the case number 4:15-cv-00284-BRW.

To read the family’s complaint, click on the button below:

View Complaint: 4:15-cv-00284-BRW

The mother in this complaint says that she was prescribed Zofran “during the early stages of her pregnancy” as a morning sickness treatment. The couple claims that their child was born on June 1, 2012 “with a partial cleft lip.” This split or opening in the upper lip, unlike a complete cleft lip, does not extend all the way to their son’s nose. Three months after birth, their child underwent a surgical procedure to repair the cleft in his lip, parents write. Plaintiffs say that their son has a permanent scar from this surgery, and it is “often red and flamed.” They note that “the bottom of his lip is not symmetrical.”

Beyond this scar, the parents claim that their son “has also had developmental delays from the sedations” required in his procedure. They write that “it took him longer to speak and walk than the average infant, and he has visited a speech therapist, a developmental therapist, and a physical therapist.” This “team” approach, in which multiple specialists are employed, is the standard of care for children born with orofacial clefts, like cleft lip or cleft palate.

This is now at least the second complaint to seek damages for a child’s orofacial cleft allegedly caused by Zofran exposure. The first, filed in early April of 2015 by a family from Montana, was brought against GlaxoSmithKline on behalf of a child born with both cleft lip and cleft palate. Increased risks for the latter abnormality, an opening in the roof of the mouth, was linked to prenatal exposure to Zofran in 2012.

Publishing their results in Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical & Molecular Teratology, researchers at Harvard and Boston Universities found that women who had been prescribed Zofran were more than twice as likely to deliver children with cleft palate.

Case 15-1815: Two Mothers From Louisiana Claim Zofran Caused Life-Threatening Congenital Heart Defects

On June 8, 2015, two women from Louisiana filed their claim against GlaxoSmithKline, alleging that prenatal exposure to Zofran caused their daughters to develop severe congenital heart defects. The case was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under case number 6:15-cv-01815-RFD-PJH.

To view their complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: 6:15-cv-01815-RFD-PJH

Both parents claim that they were prescribed Zofran as an “off label” morning sickness treatment during the first trimester of pregnancy. On July 15, 2010, the first plaintiff gave birth to her daughter, named L.D. in court documents. Quickly after delivery, L.D. was diagnosed with three heart defects:

  • Ventricular Septal Defect
  • Atrial Septal Defect
  • Intermittent Tachypnea

Plaintiff notes that two of these congenital heart defects, ventricular and atrial septal defects, are considered cardiac septal defects. She then cites a series of epidemiological studies, conducted by independent research teams in Denmark and Sweden, that have found a marked association between early exposure to Zofran and an increased risk for cardiac septal defects. Several of these studies mentioned atrial and ventricular septal defects as specific increased risks.

Intermittent tachypnea, an abnormally rapid breathing rate diagnosed just after birth, is a common symptom of congestive heart failure. Severe cardiac septal defects frequently cause this condition, in which the heart loses the ability to pump blood adequately. It can be life-threatening, and plaintiff says that her daughter was forced to undergo surgical repair of her ventricular septal defect.

The second plaintiff gave birth to a daughter on August 9, 2005. Her child was soon diagnosed with accelerated ventricular arrhythmia (AVA), a condition in which the heart’s electrical system does not work properly. In children born with AVA, the heart’s upper chambers beat out of sync with its lower chambers. According to court documents, this severe “heart defect […] nearly caused V.P. to die shortly after birth.” Plaintiff states that her daughter’s condition necessitated “intense and regular” medical surveillance during the first five years of her life.

The two mothers claim damages for medical expenses, emotional distress, pain and suffering. Like the plaintiffs before them, they allege that GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully promoted Zofran as a safe drug for pregnant women to take, while concealing mounting evidence of the drug’s association to increased birth defect risks.

Case 3:15-cv-1166: Ohio Couple Says Zofran Caused Fatal Heart Defect

On June 10, 2015, parents from Ohio filed their complaint against GlaxoSmithKline, bringing the Zofran litigation to at least 10 individual lawsuits.

In their complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, the couple claims that prenatal exposure to Zofran caused their child to develop a heart defect that would prove fatal only three days after her birth. The lawsuit was filed under case number 3:15-cv-1166.

To read the family’s complaint, click the button below:

View Complaint: 3:15-cv-1166

According to court documents, plaintiff was prescribed Zofran in 2005 to treat pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting. She writes that her pregnancy was “unremarkable,” until little over a week before her due date, her unborn child’s “heart rate began to decelerate,” or slow down abnormally.

On March 17, 2006, her daughter was born, plaintiff says, and quickly diagnosed with what court documents refer to as a “right ventrical heart defect.” Plaintiff’s child was confined to the ICU for intensive monitoring. Only three days after her birth, she went into cardiac arrest, her parents allege. Physicians on-call were unable to revive her, and plaintiff writes that her daughter died on March 20, 2006.

Plaintiffs bring claims for medical expenses and past and future mental and emotional distress, among other they have damages allegedly suffered.

Case 2:15-cv-04536-JLL-JAD: New Jersey Parents Claim Zofran Caused Clubfoot

On June 26, 2015, a family from Bergen County, New Jersey filed a new lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, claiming prenatal exposure to Zofran caused their unborn son B.M. to develop talipes equinovarus, or “clubfoot.” Court records indicate that the Zofran litigation now includes at least 15 individually-filed lawsuits.

The family’s claim was filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, and registered as case number 2:15-cv-04536-JLL-JAD.

To view the court documents, click on the button below:

View Complaint: 2:15-cv-04536-JLL-JAD

The complaint goes into substantial detail describing the child’s prenatal exposure to Zofran. The mother says that she was admitted to the hospital only three weeks after becoming pregnant, suffering from extreme dehydration and nausea. She was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum, the most severe form of morning sickness, and administered Zofran intravenously in the hospital. After being discharged, she writes, she was prescribed 4 milligram tablets of the drug, to be taken every six hours. The dosage was then increased to 8 milligrams, when her nausea and vomiting did not subside after 8 weeks of pregnancy.

Plaintiff claims that she was also prescribed a “Zofran Pump” for around 4 days. This is the first complaint to mention the device, which administers premixed injections of Zofran through a patient’s stomach every four hours. The mother says that she continued to take 8 milligram dissolvable Zofran tablets every four hours for the remainder of pregnancy.

The parents’ son was born on September 24, 2011, according to their complaint, and immediately diagnosed with talipes equinovarus, a condition in which a child’s feet appear to be rotated inward at the ankle. The abnormality is more commonly known as “clubfoot.”

The complaint describes at length the treatments allegedly administered to the child for his congenital limb defect. Nine days after delivery, doctors began the process of “gently manipulat[ing]” the tendons and ligaments in B.M.’s feet, Plaintiffs say. After bending and straightening the tissues of his ankles and feet, B.M.’s physicians placed his feet in plaster casts. This process was repeated, with old casts being removed, tendons being manipulated more and new casts being applied, on a weekly basis for the first two months of their son’s life, his parents claim.

B.M. then underwent a tenotomy, in which his Achilles tendons were cut and lengthened. A new cast was applied for several weeks, according to court documents. He was then prescribed a Mitchell shoe and Ponseti abduction brace, a medical device designed to hold his feet at an outward angle.

Club foot allegedly caused by Zofran

Mitchell shoes and Ponseti abduction brace; an illustration from complaint 2:15-cv-04536-JLL-JAD.

Parents claim that their son was forced to wear his Mitchell shoes for 23 hours every day, for six months. He was then made to wear the shoe for another six months, 18 hours a day. Another six-month period saw the child wear the device for 12 hours every day, the family says. He continues to wear the shoes at night, his parents claim. In their complaint, the family says that the device has resulted in “pressure blisters and sores,” and has impeded their son’s ability to learn to walk and sleep.

Case 2:15-cv-02323: Louisiana Mother Says Zofran Caused Atrial Septal Defect & Partial Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Return

On the same day, June 26, 2015, that the New Jersey family filed their claim, a woman from Independence, Louisiana filed her own. Bringing her suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the mother says that prenatal exposure to Zofran caused her unborn child to develop several congenital heart defects, including atrial septal defect and partial anomalous pulmonary venous return.

This is at least the tenth Zofran birth defect lawsuit to be filed in relation to congenital heart defects, and the second to name atrial septal defect specifically.

The mother’s complaint was filed under case number 2:15-cv-02323. A copy of court documents can be read by clicking the button below:

View Complaint: 2:15-cv-02323

Plaintiff claims that she was prescribed Zofran as an “off label” morning sickness treatment during the first trimester, “during the period when [her unborn child’s] cardiac tissues were forming.” She says that she continued to take the drug through her third trimester. Her son, N.A., was born in 2006, and quickly diagnosed with “several severe congenital heart defects.”

One of his alleged cardiac abnormalities, atrial septal defect, was linked to Zofran exposure by a study completed in 2013. In a paper delivered before the 29th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management, and subsequently published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, a group of Danish researchers reviewed every birth record filed between 1997 and 2010 in Denmark. Cross-referencing those records to prescription logs, they found that women who took Zofran during the first trimester were more than twice as likely to deliver babies with an atrial septal defect.

A Swedish study that followed in 2014 would find an association between prenatal exposure to Zofran and an increased risk for “cardiac septal defects,” a category that includes atrial septal defect.

The child’s other congenital heart defect, partial anomalous pulmonary venous return (PAPVR), is almost always accompanied by an atrial septal defect. Veins that transport blood from the lungs back to the heart connect to a chamber on the heart’s right side, rather than its left, in children born with PAPVR. Both defects inhibit the heart’s ability to properly nourish body tissues with oxygenated blood.

The mother says that her son, now 9 years old, has been forced to undergo two surgical procedures in hopes of repairing the cardiac anomalies with which he was born.

Case 1:15-cv-13002-FDS-TGV: Massachusetts Parents Claim Daughter’s Two Congenital Heart Defects Caused By Zofran

July 22, 2015 saw the filing of a new Zofran birth defect lawsuit. In a complaint brought against GlaxoSmithKline in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, parents say prenatal exposure to the anti-nausea drug caused their child to develop Transposition of the Great Vessels (TGV) and pulmonary stenosis.

Registered under case number 1:15-cv-13002-FDS, a copy of the court documents can be found below:

View Complaint: 1:15-cv-13002-FDS

Alleging she was prescribed Zofran in the first trimester for nausea and vomiting, Plaintiffs says her daughter M.M. was born in 2008. Even in the delivery room, the child’s appearance raised warning signs; blue skin and lips announced the infant as “cyanotic,” a condition caused by inadequate oxygen supplies.

After an echocardiogram, M.M. would be diagnosed with TGV and pulmonary stenosis, her parents write. The former condition, in which the heart’s two primary arteries are reversed in position, requires immediate attention and plaintiffs claims their daughter underwent a corrective procedure within five days of birth. To treat the latter abnormality, where an obstruction blocks the path of blood to the lungs, a second surgery was attempted, but failed.

Now seven years old, M.M.’s condition makes “continuous monitoring” necessary, according to court documents. The family “live[s] in fear,” unsure of “what could happen to their daughter and the effect her condition has and will continue to have on her daily activities.”

Can I File A Zofran Lawsuit?

If you took Zofran during early pregnancy and delivered a child with birth defects, it is possible that you could bring a case against GlaxoSmithKline.

We urge you to contact an experienced personal injury attorney as soon as possible. In your free consultation, a lawyer at Monheit Law can review your unique situation and outline any legal options you may have. Call 877-620-8411 or complete our contact form to begin.