At THE DRAKULICH FIRM, APLC we understand the immense significance and sensitivity of having our clients’ cases reported in the news. As legal professionals, we recognize that the impact of media coverage can extend far beyond the confines of the courtroom.

First and foremost, news coverage can bring public awareness to important legal matters. By presenting our clients’ cases to a wider audience, we can educate the public about the issues at hand, raising awareness about injustices, highlighting systemic problems, or shedding light on groundbreaking legal developments. This heightened visibility often serves as a catalyst for change, prompting public discourse and potentially influencing policy decisions.

Moreover, media attention can provide our clients with a powerful platform to tell their stories and advocate for their rights. When a case garners press coverage, it allows our clients to share their experiences, perspectives, and concerns with a larger audience. Nonetheless, we are sensitive not to interrupt any court proceedings.  We would never actively violate a court order or attempt to unfairly influence a jury.  As such, during trial we primarily say, no comment, until the jury has returned its verdict.  However, when appropriate, we understand the potential impact of the news to create broader change.  Below are some excerpts from some recent media attention.

  • “In the wake of a recent landmark ruling form the U.S. Supreme Court restricting the ability of out-of-state plaintiffs to sue large manufacturers and other corporations, plaintiffs’ lawyers across the country have watched with trepidation as they waited to see just how much the cases and business models they had spent years building could be sliced.  However, while the ruling has resulted in some significant wins for corporate defendants, thwarting some potentially large cases, the gut punch many feared may have proven easier to sidestep than had been originally believed, said a panel of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers during a presentation at a recent litigation conference in Chicago.  On May 30, HarrisMartin Publishing hosted its ‘MDL Conference: ‘Bet-the-Company’ Mass Tort Litigation’ at the Peninsula Hotel in Chicago’s River North district, assembling panels of some of the country’s most prominent trial lawyers to discuss and share insights on many of the biggest litigation topics pending in courts across the U.S…. Fellow panelist Nicholas Drakulich, of The Drakulich Firm, of San Diego, agreed, while noting the post-BMS landscape may require plaintiffs’ lawyers to simply work harder.  Drakulich pointed to a recent decision from Philadelphia, where a judge in that city’s Court of Common Pleas had rejected the motion from Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc. to dismiss more than 120 lawsuits brought against the company by plaintiffs alleging they had been injured by Ethicon’s transvaginal mesh products… ‘As the saying goes: ‘There’s the law, and it’s all shaped by the facts,’’ said Drakulich ‘And facts can be tough things. So our job is to go find those tough things, and then prove those tough things.’… Drakulich conceded Bristol Myers Squibb has delivered some changes sought by businesses and employers…Overall, however, Drakulich said the basic rules of mass tort lawsuits remain the same.  ‘You pick your fights, you pick your forums, you develop your case,’ Drakulich said.

“Excerpt from Cook County Record, Chicago, Illinois, May 2018 article entitled: Trial lawyer panel: Plaintiffs’ lawyers adapting strategies to fit post-BristolMyersSquibb legal landscape” by Jonathan Bilyk.

  • “A St. Louis judge has cleared the way for the first jury trial involving personal injuries allegedly caused by Medtronic’s Infuse Bone Graft.  The injury claims of plaintiff Trisha Keim are set for trial in February, after Judge Mark H. Neill of Missouri’s 22nd Judicial Circuit declined to dismiss the case or transfer it to another court…The Keim case survived federal pre-emption arguments by Medtronic…Neill said Keim’s allegations run parallel to federal law and do not superimpose state laws over U.S. statutes or add new requirements. For that reason he declined to dismiss the case, letting it go to the jury.”

Star Tribune, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, December 2016 article entitled “St. Louis court clears way for first Infuse jury trial: The judge’s ruling could make sealed records public, where they would be available for additional cases” by Jim Spencer. Together with co-counsel, firm partner Mr. Nicholas Drakulich represented Mrs. Keim as well as numerous other Infuse clients.  Mr. Drakulich successfully argued against the preemption motion for Mrs. Keim and was the lead trial counsel in her case. 

  • “Takeda Pharmaceutical has agreed to pay $2.4 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits from patients and their family members who said that the company’s diabetes drug Actos caused bladder cancer, it announced on Tuesday.  Takeda, a Japanese company, said the settlement would resolve most of the product-liability lawsuits related to Actos…About 9,000 bladder cancer claims are pending against Takeda involving Actos. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs had said Takeda concealed the cancer risk of the big-selling medication.”

Excerpt from New York Times, New York, New York, April 2015, article entitled “Takeda Agrees to Pay $2.4 Billion to Settle Suits Over Cancer Risk of Actos” by Andrew Pollack.  Nicholas Drakulich was a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) in the underlying Actos Multi-District Litigation (MDL).

  • “In one of the biggest damages verdicts ever imposed, a jury in Louisiana has ordered a Japanese drug maker and its American partner to pay a combined $9 billion in punitive damages over a diabetes drug that has been linked to cancer.  Jurors in a district court trial in Lafayette, La., ordered the Japanese company, Takeda Pharmaceutical, to pay $6 billion in punitive damages on Monday after finding that the company had hidden the cancer risks of its drug, Actos.  The jury also ordered Takeda’s partner, Eli Lilly, which once marketed the drug in the United States, to pay $3 billion.”

Excerpt from New York Times, New York, New York, April 2014, article entitled “Jury Awards $9 Billion in Damages in Drug Case” by Martin Fackler and Andrew Pollack. Nicholas Drakulich was a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) and a member of trial team led by Mark Lanier, in the underlying Actos Multi-District Litigation (MDL). Mr. Drakulich also spearheaded the discovery efforts via key depositions of corporate employees and officers in the U.S. and England and the development of the case against Eli Lilly.

  • “Medtronic, the maker of heart devices, agreed to pay $268 million to settle lawsuits over claims that fractured wires in a line of its cardiac defibrillators caused at least 13 deaths. Medtronic said it was resolving claims that wires connecting its implantable Sprint Fidelis defibrillators to patients’ hearts were defective. The company halted sales of the so-called defibrillator leads in October 2007 after they were linked to users’ deaths.”

Excerpt from New York Times, New York, New York, October 2010 article entitled “Medtronic to Settle Lawsuits Over Devices Tied to Deaths.”  Nicholas Drakulich was a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) in the underlying In Re Medtronic Inc. Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability Litigation.

  • “Lawyers who won a $114 million settlement last year on behalf of thousands of patients who had potentially faulty heart defibrillators made by Medtronic Inc. have given $1 million to a Minneapolis foundation that has done groundbreaking work tracking the safety of cardiac devices. A check will be presented to the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation at Abbott Northwestern Hospital on Monday. The funds will be used to further develop the foundation’s Multi-Center Registry, which collects safety data about defibrillators and pacemakers from six hospitals across the country.”

Excerpt from Star Tribune, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, December 2008 article entitled “Funding a watchdog at foundation: A $1 million grant from lawyers who won settlement against Medtronic will help track the performance of heart devices” by Janet Moore. Nicholas Drakulich was a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) and Lead Trial Counsel on the underlying Medtronic Defibrillator Multi-District Litigation (MDL) and instrumental in creating this grant. Mr. Drakulich together with his co-counsel presented the $1million dollar grant to Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation.

  • “The Boston Scientific Corporation said yesterday that it had agreed to pay $195 million to settle claims brought by thousands of heart patients who said they were not alerted to potential flaws in a defibrillator made by the Guidant Corporation, now a unit of Boston Scientific. The settlement came two weeks before what would have been the first federal trial over claims related to the defibrillator.”

Excerpt from New York Times, New York, New York, July 2007 article entitled “Maker Settles Suit on Device for Hearts” by Barry Meier. Nicholas Drakulich was scheduled to lead this trial against Guidant.  Mr. Drakulich was also a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) and Lead Trial Counsel in the underlying Guidant Defibrillator Multi-District Litigation (MDL).

  • “Boston Scientific Corp. said Monday it has agreed to increase the amount it will pay to settle thousands of heart patients’ legal claims involving potentially faulty defibrillators by $45 million. The increase means the medical device maker will pay as much as $240 million, instead of the $195 million from a settlement announced July 13 that didn’t cover additional litigation included under the new total.”

Excerpt from Twin Cities Pioneer Press, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, November 2007, article entitled “Boston Scientific raises cost for settling Guidant lawsuits.” Mr. Drakulich was the lead trial attorney against Guidant and was a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) in the Guidant Defibrillator Multi-District Litigation (MDL).

  • “A lawsuit alleging that Guidant Corp. hid potentially dangerous flaws in several models of popular heart defibrillators is expected to go to trial July 30…Nicholas Drakulich, an attorney representing patients, argued that Guidant hid problems with its defibrillators for years in an effort to boost profits.  Guidant officials knew as early as June 2002 that a specific ICD model had the tendency to short-circuit, but waited three years before informing physicians and the public. ‘We must strive to be money hungry’ in selling the defibrillators, Guidant marketing executives said in an internal document Drakulich quoted during Friday’s hearing…Drakulich said studies in the 1970s on polyimide, insulation used in Duron’s defibrillator, showed the material didn’t stand up well to heat and humidity.  Because the devices are implanted in patients’ bodies, the risks of short-circuits were evident, he added.”

Excerpt from Star Tribune, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, May 2007 article entitled “Guidant trial over devices set for July: Legal arguments in federal court Friday offered a mini-preview of the Guidant defibrillator trial” by Janet Moore.


  • “Guidant Corp. should be at risk of punitive damages for how it handled problems with implanted cardiac defibrillators that ultimately were recalled in 2005, attorneys for plaintiffs argued Friday during a court hearing in Minneapolis…The company kept selling the device so it could keep pace with Fridley-based Medtronic Inc., its top competitor in the multibillion-dollar market, charged Nicholas Drakulich, an attorney for a California man who is one of more than 2,200 plaintiffs in lawsuits related to Guidant’s controversial recalls…Duron’s Guidant device never failed, and his case likely wouldn’t come to court were it not for the case of Joshua Oukrop, a 21-year old Grand Rapids, Minn., man who died when his implanted Guidant defibrillator failed to deliver a life-saving jolt.  Duron’s defibrillator could have suffered from the same shortening problem…Drakulich reprised some of that history Friday in making the case for punitive damages, displaying a 2005 e-mail that [Dr.] Hauser sent that charged: ‘This is an egregious act by a manufacturer of lifesaving devices.’ The hearing featured some sensational bits of evidence from plaintiffs attorneys…Drakulich, for example, displayed an internal company memo that stated: ‘The marketing staff is comprised of money-hungry, market-share-at-any-cost individuals whose sole purpose is to wildly promote products.’” 

Excerpt from Twin Cities Pioneer Press, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, May 2007 article entitled “Guidant suit seeks punitive award” by Christopher Snowbeck.