DMAAA federal judge should reject a motion by Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals to vacate an order that its DMAA products are adulterated, the U.S. Justice Department argued this week.
Free Confidential Lawsuit Evaluation: If you or a loved one was injured by DMAA side effects, you should contact our law firm immediately. You may be entitled to compensation by filing a suit and our lawyers can help.

What’s the Problem?

First introduced as a nasal decongestant in 1948, 1, 3-dimethylamylamine (DMAA) was withdrawn as an approved drug in the 1970s after animal testing concluded the substance was structurally similar to ephedra. Often touted as a ‘natural stimulant,’ supplement manufacturers base this claim on a discarded study from an obscure scientific journal which claimed that it was a derivative of geranium oil.
In 2012, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) warned supplement manufacturers to remove DMAA from their products. However, Hi-Tech, has challenged the agency’s position in a drawn out court case that could continue through next year.
U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt, Jr., ruled on April 3, 2017 in favor of the FDA and against Hi-Tech and Jared Wheat, the company’s president and principal owner. DMAA, Hunt maintained, is not a dietary ingredient, and Hi-Tech’s supplements that contain it are adulterated and subject to seizure by the feds.
Wheat vowed to file an appeal with the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals if Hunt rules against vacating the judgment. Hi-Tech objected to the court’s interpretation of the term “botanical” and what specifically comprises a “constituent” of a botanical; however, the government argued that the court applied traditional statutory terms to define the interpretation.
“In this case, the court relied on dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary and, for the meaning of the term ‘botanical,’ and by extension, what comprises a ‘constituent’ of a botanical,” the Justice Department said. “[Judge] Hunt also appropriately considered whether the application of the plain meaning of the terms would lead to an absurd result within the fabric of the entire statutory scheme.”
In his motion for reconsideration, Wheat stated that Judge Hunt had improperly decided the following factual issue based on an incomplete record: “whether DMAA can be extracted from geraniums in ‘usable quantities.’”
Wheat cited one of his experts who noted patent applications had been “filed to commercially extract DMAA from geraniums.” The patent applications reportedly described an extraction method that would achieve a DMAA concentration of 1 to 3%.

Do I Have a DMAA Class Action Lawsuit?

The Class Action Litigation Group at our law firm is an experienced team of trial lawyers that focus on the representation of plaintiffs in DMAA supplement side effects lawsuits. We are handling individual litigation nationwide and currently accepting new injury and death cases in all 50 states.
Free Case Evaluation: Again, if you were harmed by the side effects of DMAA, you should contact our law firm immediately. You may be entitled to a settlement by filing a suit and we can help.

FREE Confidential Case Evaluation

To contact us for a free review of your potential case, please fill out the form below or call us toll free 24 hrs/day by dialing: (866) 588-0600.