{"id":6397,"date":"2016-03-07T15:22:18","date_gmt":"2016-03-07T20:22:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:10028\/verdicts\/650-million-settlement\/"},"modified":"2022-06-27T00:56:41","modified_gmt":"2022-06-27T04:56:41","slug":"liquidacion-de-650-millones","status":"publish","type":"verdicts","link":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/veredictos\/liquidacion-de-650-millones\/","title":{"rendered":"Liquidaci\u00f3n $650 Millones"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>La firma negoci\u00f3 este acuerdo para resolver los reclamos de aproximadamente 4,000 usuarios de Pradaxa\u00ae que afirmaron haber sido lesionados por la droga.<\/p>\n<p>Risks associated with stroke among atrial fibrillation sufferers. Users utilizing Pradaxa started suffering bleeding by means of this medication. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. including its affiliated businesses was driven by the Court to enter into a settlement with 4000 users of this anticoagulant that Napoli Shkolnik legal group was representing. Consequently, Boehringer Ingelheim consented To an amount of $650 million in settlement. Paul and his company ensured at least the wounded users of Pradaxa received warranted fiscal compensation and justice.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>La firma negoci\u00f3 este acuerdo para resolver los reclamos de aproximadamente 4,000 usuarios de Pradaxa\u00ae que afirmaron haber sido lesionados por la droga. Riesgos asociados con el accidente cerebrovascular entre la fibrilaci\u00f3n auricular...<\/p>","protected":false},"featured_media":6398,"menu_order":0,"template":"","verdict_category":[758],"class_list":["post-6397","verdicts","type-verdicts","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","verdict_category-pharmaceutical-litigation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts\/6397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/verdicts"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts\/6397\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6398"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"verdict_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdict_category?post=6397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}