{"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-milionowa-osada","status":"publish","type":"verdicts","link":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/pl\/wyroki\/650-milionowa-osada\/","title":{"rendered":"$650 mln rozliczenia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Firma wynegocjowa\u0142a t\u0119 ugod\u0119, aby rozwi\u0105za\u0107 roszczenia oko\u0142o 4000 u\u017cytkownik\u00f3w Pradaxa\u00ae, kt\u00f3rzy twierdzili, \u017ce odnie\u015bli obra\u017cenia w wyniku dzia\u0142ania leku.<\/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>Firma wynegocjowa\u0142a t\u0119 ugod\u0119, aby rozwi\u0105za\u0107 roszczenia oko\u0142o 4000 u\u017cytkownik\u00f3w Pradaxa\u00ae, kt\u00f3rzy twierdzili, \u017ce odnie\u015bli obra\u017cenia w wyniku dzia\u0142ania leku. Zagro\u017cenia zwi\u0105zane z udarem w\u015br\u00f3d migotania przedsionk\u00f3w\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\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts\/6397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/verdicts"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdicts\/6397\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6398"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"verdict_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/napolilaw.lemonadestand.org\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/verdict_category?post=6397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}