In addition to being an attorney, Philip Bartlett is a former member of the Maine State Senate. He served from 2004 to 2012 and was Senate Majority Leader from 2008 to 2010. He graduated from Tufts University in 1998 and Harvard Law School in 2001. He worked as an attorney while serving in the Senate. He and his wife, Abigail, have one child. They live in Gorham, Maine.
Philip bartlett
If you need an experienced attorney in Georgia, look no further than a Phillip Bartlett lawyer. A member of the American Association for Justice, the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, and the DeKalb County Bar Association, Mr. Bartlett has earned several honors. His clients can rest assured that he will get the best results for them. He is an AV Preeminent-rated attorney and has won numerous legal cases.
Defendant’s alleged violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
This case was brought against ev3, a medical device manufacturer, by a former sales representative. The plaintiff alleged that ev3 fraudulently obtained the FDA’s approval of Onyx by omitting information about its safety and disclaiming the intent to market the device for purposes not approved by the FDA. Despite ev3’s denials of the allegations, the plaintiffs’ claims may have influenced the FDA’s approval of Onyx. Accordingly, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest to support D’Agostino’s claims.
Shane Bartlett’s amputation
Philip Bartlett was a former Democratic State Senator from Maine from 2004 to 2012, representing District 6. He was Senate Majority Leader from 2008 to 2010. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Tufts University and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He is married to Abigail Bartlett and they live in Gorham, Maine. The amputation of Shane Bartlett’s foot is the result of his negligence.
Defendant’s failure to adequately warn users
Whether a Defendant’s failure to adequately alert users of a product is a sufficient basis for liability can depend on the quality of the warning. The warning in Bartlett was inadequate because the prescriber did not read it. However, a stronger warning would not have prevented the plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, a Defendant is not liable for damages based on a failure to warn the user.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs do not allege that a Defendant’s failure to adequately notify users is a sufficient basis for a negligence claim. The plaintiffs claim that a more prominent warning would have compelled the prescriber to take more caution, preventing the injuries. Defendant, however, counters that a duty to warn is not sufficient to allow a plaintiff to recover damages based on Defendant’s negligence.
Pfizer’s alleged reckless promotion of Lyrica
The complaint filed by Phillip Bartlett’s lawyer focuses on the claims that Pfizer was negligent in its marketing of Lyrica and marketed the drug in a way that led to Mr. Bartlett’s injuries. Plaintiffs allege that Pfizer failed to test the drug for use with spinal stenosis and that the company promoted it for off-label use.
The complaint was filed by Lyrica users who suffered from falls. In addition to falls, many Lyrica users also suffered falls or other injuries. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Pfizer was negligent in testing Lyrica for off-label uses and failed to adequately warn consumers and physicians about the risks associated with the drug. This case will proceed to trial, and a decision will likely be made shortly.
