Pre-existing conditions always have some impact on injury cases, whether the claim is based on negligence or strict product liability, sometimes to the benefit of the maker or manufacturer, other times not.

In December of 2004, Pfizer Company, the manufacturer of the drug Bextra, warned doctors of the elevated risk of blood clots, heart attacks and strokes to which its painkiller has been linked when taken by cardiac-surgery patients. This was a couple of years after the drug was put on the market. Physicians who prescribed the drug for cardiac patients after this warning was issued took a chance, and may have stepped further into the fire now that Bextra has been pulled off the market. As with any drugs with side effects, and virtually all have them, it’s always a question of benefit versus risk. When a pharmaceutical company warns of elevated risks for cardiac patients, however, that may turn out to be way too risky for a physician to justify prescribing it to a patient with heart problems.

Because of the recent specific warning to physicians about potential effects on cardiac patients, Bextra does have some defense to claims for those with pre-existing conditions who were prescribed the medication since the warnings were issued. That defense is simply to point a finger at the doctors who prescribed the drug for those patients.

But what about prior to the specific warnings being given? Bextra will likely bear responsibility for worsening the condition of some of these patients. You may very well fall into that category since you began taking Bextra prior to the warnings to physicians. Pfizer may be strictly liable for the damage its drug caused you. For a discussion of strict liability, click here.