EpiPen Class Action Lawsuit – Pfizer and Mylan agreed to pay $345 million settlement

A consolidated EpiPen class action lawsuit was filed claiming that Mylan and Pfizer violated racketeering and antitrust laws while promoting their injector EpiPen. They have now agreed to pay a $345 million amount as a settlement.

EpiPen, which is an epinephrine injector, is usually used to treat the severe adverse effects of allergic reactions.

The class-action lawsuit involves every entity or person in the United States who provided reimbursement or paid for the purchase of EpiPen to prevent the allergic reaction but did not sell it further by themselves, by any insured plans, by families, employees, or did not receive a commission on the basis of reselling it to any beneficiary between 24 Aug 2011 – 1st Nov 2020.

Entities that are excluded from the settlement include government entities who actually purchased the product EpiPen from the manufacturers and defendants of the lawsuit (Pfizer and Mylan), people who are insured from health plans governed by the US government, and individuals who purchased EpiPen before March 13, 2014.

Look for the details of exclusion on the settlement notice.

Consumers allegedly claimed in EpiPen class action in 2017 that Pfizer and Mylan evidently planned to create the monopoly of their product EpiPen by rebating largely to Medical plan providers and insurers who then refused to cover other alternate medications and prescriptions.

The lawsuit was filed in 2017 when the product prices rose up to $600 from $100 in just a period of ten years.

The current settlement of $345 million from the pharma giant does not wind up the claims raised on the other defendants in the EpiPen lawsuit; Mylan N.V, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc, Mylan Specialty L.P., Heather Bresch, and Viatris Inc. The trials on these remaining pharmaceutical companies are scheduled to begin on Jan 24, 2022.

On the other hand, Pharma Giant – Pfizer refused to accept any liability against the EpiPen class action lawsuit. However, the settlement amount of $345 million is received and will be distributed once the attorney fees and other court costs will be excluded.

The settlement funds received are separated into two pools to be divided in the plaintiffs. One is for the consumers who purchased the product without the intent to resell it and the other part of the pool will be allotted to the third-party payors.

However, eighty percent of the settlement funds will be allotted to the third-party class pool members as they invest more than an individual may invest in purchase.  While the other 20% is allocated for the individual consumers of the pool.

The recovery amount will then be determined by the claims of the other individuals of the pool compared to the total number of valid claims from the individuals of the same pool who submitted authentic and valid claims timely.

Additionally, the settlement also resolves the claims against the members who have given up their rights to take any legal action against Pfizer or the associated class-action lawsuit defendants.

Epipen class action lawsuit fairness hearing was scheduled on 27th October 2020, where the plaintiffs can claim their compensation till Nov 12, 2021.

How to find out if you are eligible to receive financial compensation?

As mentioned above, every person or government entity who purchased the product or given reimbursement against authorized branded generic anti-allergic Epipen for the injecting or consumption purpose, and did or did not intend to resale by themselves, through a pharmacy, insurance plan, or by any means, and did not exclude themselves from the class action lawsuit or not given up their rights in favor of the defendants will remain eligible for receiving the settlement funds.

To file your claim there’s no documentation required, however, the settlement administration may ask you to provide proof to validate your claim. This proof can be some of the following documents that you may require to provide in order to support your claim;

• Credit card statements, items purchase receipts from the store, or canceled checks that prove that the EpiPen purchases were made.
• An EOB statement from your insurance company showing that you have paid them for branded EpiPen purchases.
• Pharmacy records representing that you paid for the generic EpiPen branded injectable medicine at a raised price.

Hospital or medical professional prescription that you were prescribed for EpiPen. Generic.

Updates in the Generic EpiPen Class Action Lawsuit

Mylan – aka Viatris is heading towards facing a fair trial in January 2022 against the plaintiff’s allegations that Mylan and other competitors including Teva pharmaceutical intentionally delayed the launch of the alternative product to Epipen which enabled the monopoly of Pfizer to raise the product prices.

The defense attorney of the defendants said that the delay was part of the agreement made to resolve the dispute among the companies over EpiPen and Teva’s sleeping disorder pill – Nuvigil.

The plaintiff further claimed that both the companies agreed on limiting their competition by making profits for a few years by delaying manufacturing of their drugs creating a monopoly market.

The defendant’s lawyers’ team encountered the statement that the patent agreement was made coincidently, as Teva was experiencing issues with its auto-injector device, and the approval from FDA created a delay in the process.

The sitting judge in the trial has sent the lawsuit further to resolve and scheduled a hearing next year. On the June 23rd hearing, the judge noted that the Pharmaceutical experts from the plaintiffs cited that Teva showed an unusual delay in responding to the issues raised by the FDA towards its injector.

The expert analysis stated that Teva took ‘9 years and 9 months to respond and to get approval for its auto-injector from FDA when they compared other Teva’s generic products which were approved by FDA within 30 months.

On keeping the analysis in consideration, Judge Crabtree said that it’s on the jury whether they find the analysis credible against the allegations. However, the analysis will be considered during the trial.