{"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":"650-millions-de-reglement","status":"publish","type":"verdicts","link":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/fr\/verdicts\/650-millions-de-reglement\/","title":{"rendered":"$650 millions de r\u00e8glement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>L&#039;entreprise a n\u00e9goci\u00e9 ce r\u00e8glement pour r\u00e9soudre les r\u00e9clamations d&#039;environ 4 000 utilisateurs de Pradaxa\u00ae qui affirmaient avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 bless\u00e9s par la drogue.<\/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>L&#039;entreprise a n\u00e9goci\u00e9 ce r\u00e8glement pour r\u00e9soudre les r\u00e9clamations d&#039;environ 4 000 utilisateurs de Pradaxa\u00ae qui affirmaient avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 bless\u00e9s par la drogue. Risques associ\u00e9s aux AVC chez la fibrillation auriculaire\u2026<\/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\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts\/6397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/verdicts"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts\/6397\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6398"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"verdict_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdict_category?post=6397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}