Source: https://www.birthinjurysettlement.com/about/john-j-driscoll/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:09:20+00:00

Document:
John J. Driscoll is licensed to practice law in the states of Illinois (including Cook County), Missouri, and Minnesota. He is admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Mr. Driscoll received his B.A. from Loyola University of Chicago, and his Juris Doctorate from Saint Louis University School of Law. Before starting law school, Mr. Driscoll accepted an appointment to serve as the Jury Commissioner for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois (St. Clair County, aka East St. Louis).
Mr. Driscoll began his law career as an Assistant Public Defender in Illinois, trying countless misdemeanor and felony criminal cases to verdict. After leaving the Public Defender’s Office, he spent several years serving two Illinois Appellate Court Justices consecutively as an in-chamber law clerk.
Outside of litigation, Driscoll has often accepted invitations to speak to other practitioners on the topic of pharmaceutical litigation at national conferences. Most recently, in June 2008, Mr. Driscoll was invited to speak in Chicago at Mealey’s Pharmaceutical Litigation SuperConference on the topic of state consumer fraud acts as applied to pharmaceutical litigation.
In 2007, Mr. Driscoll served as a speaker for a conference hosted by Mealey’s, entitled Drug & Medical Device Litigation Conference. The same year he also served as co-chair at a conference hosted by Harris Martin Publishing, entitled The Science and Law Behind Permax, Zelnorm, EPO-Anemia Drugs & Ongoing Drug Litigation Battles. Similarly, in 2006, he served as a co-chair for Harris Martin Publishing’s Pharmaceutical & Human Tissue Litigation Conference: An In-depth Look at Seroquel, Ortho-Evra, Zyprexa & Human Tissue Transplant Litigation in Charleston, South Carolina.
Mr. Driscoll has also served as a speaker for the conference organizer Professionally Speaking, Inc., which provides continuing education to professionals. Specifically, Mr. Driscoll addressed the topic of pharmaceutical drug litigation concerning the pharmaceutical drug Seroquel on June 22 and 23, 2007 at the Profitable Practices: Attorney Marketing, Management, and Networking Conference.
The foregoing pharmaceutical, consumer class, and complex litigation experience has led to unsolicited media inquiry and reporting. Business oriented periodicals, such as the Wall Street Journal and the St. Louis Business Journal have sought Mr. Driscoll’s comment on various pharmaceutical or medical device litigations. Macleans, Canada’s only national weekly current affairs magazine, inquired on the status of litigation concerning Merck’s pharmaceutical drug Gardasil. Even anti-victim, trial lawyer hating, United States Chamber of Commerce owned, periodicals such as the so-called Madison/St. Clair County Record have characterized Mr. Driscoll’s efforts litigating pharmaceutical cases as “prolific”.
Mr. Driscoll was appointed to serve as co-lead class counsel for a class of Illinois purchasers of the withdrawn Bayer pharmaceutical product Baycol. In that case, it is alleged that the pharmaceutical manufacturer violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by concealing material terms from consumers in selling the drug. De Bouse, et. al. v. Bayer AG, et. al. 373 Ill. App. 3d 774, 869 N.E.2d 365 (2007).
Mr. Driscoll resolved a pharmaceutical purchaser action alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act associated with the sale of the anti-depressant drug Paxil to minors and adolescents, in the United States District court for the Southern District of Illinois, Baldwin, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 3:06-cv-01031-MJR-DGW)(confidential settlement). Driscoll also served as one of a tri-parte Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a class action premised upon the violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act concerning the withdrawn pharmaceutical product Vioxx. Amisch, et. al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., (Cook County, Illinois)(Case No. 05-CH-13176 Consolidated With 06-L-10107 and 07-L-6719).
Mr. Driscoll served as class counsel in his prosecution of another class action premised upon violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act against Sears, Roebuck and Company, pending in St. Clair County, Illinois, Bradley, et. al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., (Case No. 06-L-95).
Additionally, Mr. Driscoll was appointed to serve as co-lead class counsel in a Missouri class action involving the pharmaceutical anti-depressant Celexa, the suit alleges that Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the maker of Celexa, improperly marketed for use by minors and adolescents in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Crawford, et. al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (Case no. 0922-CC08347)(St. Louis City, Missouri).
In Illinois, only one Vioxx suit was tried to verdict. In February of 2007, Mr. Driscoll served as co-lead trial counsel in a wrongful death case tried to verdict in Madison County, Illinois (Schwaller v. Merck & Co., Inc. (Case No. 05-L-687)). In Schwaller, the family of Patricia Schwaller alleged that her 20 months of continuous Vioxx use contributed to her fatal heart attack on August 8, 2003.
In the Vioxx Litigation, Driscoll represented 422 families and individuals alleged to have suffered injuries resulting from their Vioxx use. A litigation that resulted in a $4.85 billion dollar settlement agreement. Merck agreed to the program to resolve approximately 50,000 myocardial infarction; sudden cardiac death; and ischemic stroke claims after withdrawing Vioxx from the market September 30, 2004. Note, the family members in Schwaller v. Merck, were compensated under the foregoing settlement process.
Currently, Mr. Driscoll represents more than 1705 Plaintiffs in the following matters: Morris, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation (Case No.09-L-104)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Dillard, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation (Case No. 09-L-176)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Armer, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation (Case No. 09-L-241)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Adams, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation (Case No. 09-L-253)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Adkisson, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation (Case No. 09-L-254)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Aurillo, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC01738)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Dickerson, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC01728)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Douglas, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC01736)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Hudson, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC01726)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Hall, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC01740)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Eley, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC02316)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Buckley, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC02902)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Jefferson, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC002876)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Duncan, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC10128)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Wiseman, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC10520)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Veasley, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC10612)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Payne, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11156)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Bess, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11350)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Rockwell, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11362)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Clark, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11622)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Harvey, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11730)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Hindsman, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11732)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Gerner, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11728)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Green, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11726)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Turner, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11736)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Wilson, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11740)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Drummer, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1022-CC11788)(St. Louis City, Missouri), Smith, et. al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (Case No. 1122-CC00206)(St. Louis City, Missouri), and 49 claims pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Avandia MDL-1871, all involving the pharmaceutical product Avandia.
Mr. Driscoll represented a number of Plaintiffs injured by products recalled by K.V. Pharmaceuticals and Ethex Corporation. Specifically, 23 Plaintiffs in Fox, et. al. v. K-V Pharmaceutical Company, et. al. (Case No. 09-L-286)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Handle, et. al. v. K-V Pharmaceutical Company, et. al. (Case No. 1022-CC12050)(St. Louis City, Missouri) additionally, Mr. Driscoll filed a class action petition in the City of St. Louis alleging that K.V. Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Ethex Corporation violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act in their sale of known defective products to consumers. Herndon, et. al. v. K-V Pharmaceutical Company, et. al. (Case No. 1122-CC00193)(St. Louis City, Missouri).
Mr. Driscoll served as lead counsel and is prosecuting the claims of nearly 266 Plaintiffs in the following matters: Brown, et. al. v. Bayer Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 09-L-439)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Gilmore, et. al. v. Bayer Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 09-L-496)(St. Clair Co., Illinois),Bancroft, et. al. v. Bayer Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 09-L-497)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), Lecker, et. al. v. Bayer Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 09-L-498)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), and Argento, et. al. v. Bayer Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 0922-CC09567)(St. Louis City, Missouri), and Coleman, et. al. v. Bayer Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 1022-CC09990-01)(St. Louis City, Missouri), all involving the pharmaceutical product Trasylol.
The makers and sellers of patient monographs for the pharmaceutical drug Reglan, or metoclopramide, as well as the authors, were prosecuted by Driscoll for failure to warn users of the dangers of developing the debilitating neurological disorder Tardive Dyskinesia and other debilitating neurological disorders. Barton, et. al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1022-CC10066)(St. Louis City, Missouri).
Mr. Driscoll prosecuted the claims of more than 70 women who suffered long bone femur fractures from their continuous use of osteoporosis drugs, including Fosamax. Welch, et. al. v. Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corporation, et. al. (Case No. 1122-CC00717)(St. Louis City, Missouri).
In McCraney-Buzick v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (Case No. 3:06-cv-70), Driscoll argued before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in support of his motion to coordinate and consolidate all actions concerning the pharmaceutical drug Seroquel in front of this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Unfortunately In Re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation,MDL Docket No. 1769, was located in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Honorable Judge Ann C. Conway presiding.
Mr. Driscoll was counsel involved in the resolution of numerous multi-plaintiff pharmaceutical product liability cases. Of note, 63 Plaintiffs in Austin, et. al. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Case No. 07-L-525)(St. Clair Co., Illinois), involving the pharmaceutical product Ketek.
In the Celebrex litigation, Mr. Driscoll prosecuted and successfully resolved the claims of 9 plaintiffs in Madison County, Illinois in White, et. al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2007-L-325) and in Wiese, et. al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 007-L-324). (confidential settlement).
Similarly, Driscoll resolved 28 pharmaceutical product liability claims to the satisfaction of 28 women alleged to have suffered injury from the birth control patch, Ortho Evra (confidential settlement).
Likewise, Mr. Driscoll was involved in the successful resolution of several cases, to the satisfaction of several Plaintiffs, in the Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) litigation. Locally noteworthy, he litigated Keller v. Wyeth, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 09-MI-304007); and Angelopoulos v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et. al. (Case No. 03-L-014511) (confidential settlement) in Cook County, Illinois.
In the past, Driscoll successfully resolved the claims of approximately 232 plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in which it was alleged that each plaintiff suffered injury from defective defibrillators manufactured by Guidant Corporation (confidential settlement). Similarly represented were numerous plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in which it was alleged that each plaintiff suffered injury from defective defibrillators manufactured by Medtronic (settlement pending).
Driscoll represented 18 plaintiffs alleged to have been stricken with Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy, a rare incurable skin disorder caused by the injection of an MRI contrast agent, Omniscan, manufactured by General Electric. McCallum, et. al. v. General Electric Company, et. al. (08-L-394) (St. Clair County, Illinois).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1407
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.