ILNews

Suit to be filed over meningitis outbreak

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys for a Columbus woman who has developed symptoms of fungal meningitis after being treated with steroid injections are suing the drugmaker at the center of a widening outbreak blamed on tainted shots.

Nancy Compass received three steroid treatment shots in her spine for lower back pain in July and August at Wellspring Pain Solutions in Columbus. Since then, she has “experienced frequent, intermittent and migratory headaches, episodes of blurred vision and discomfort with lowering her chin to her chest,” according to the suit that attorneys said would be filed Friday in Bartholomew County.

New England Compounding Center, its pharmaceutical production companies and the company’s majority shareholders are named as defendants. The suit says federal health officials estimate that 17,676 potentially tainted vials of methylprednisolone acetate were sold to 75 hospitals in 23 states. The vials lacked an alcohol preservative, leaving patients subject to potential infection from a fungus that had not been eradicated, the suit says.

Thirty four cases of fungal menigitis tied to the shots have been reported in Indiana, and two deaths in the state have been attributed to the outbreak, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Attorney Brady Rife with McNeely Stephenson Thopy & Harrold in Shelbyville said the suit is representative of patients who received shots and have symptoms of fungal meningitis, but are in limbo because a diagnosis often cannot be immediately made. The CDC says diagnosis sometimes cannot be made until 90 days after infection.

Starr Austen & Miller LLP of Logansport also is representing Compass. The suit claims strict product liability for failure to warn and for a dangerously defective product, as well as a claim of negligence. The suit seeks unspecified damages in addition to damages for personal injuries, medical expenses, past and future suffering and emotional distress, and attorney fees.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT