Articles Posted in Eli Lilly

Published on:

On Monday, the 2nd Circuit ruled that the plaintiff in the Zyprexa lawsuit knew (or should have known) that Zyprexa potentially caused his diabetes more than two years before he sued Eli Lily.

Plaintiff was told by his doctor that he had diabetes in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s. He was prescribed Zyprexa in 1997 and continued taking it until late 2001, when his doctor took him off took him off of the drug due to weight gain.

Plaintiff’s lawsuit (filed in 2006) claimed that while taking the drug, his glycemic control significantly worsened and that towards the end, he developed diabetes-related complications.

Published on:

There have been no lawsuits filed (of which we are aware) involving Effient, a blood-thinner marketed by Eli Lilly. There could be potential lawsuits on the horizon after news that Effient has been linked to higher rates of cancer than its rival, Plavix, according to data provided in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Sometimes plaintiffs’ lawyers are like the man with a hammer. Everything is a nail. So before demanding a recall and calling this the next class action, here are two good reasons why there may never be any lawsuits associated with Effient: First, it could be that this data is wrong and there is no high rate of cancer with Effient. Second, it could be that Eli Lily could not have known of the increased cancer rate even with the exercise of reasonable care and diligence. Still, smart Effient patients should be talking to their doctors and smart plaintiffs’ lawyers will keep abreast of future developments.

Published on:

We’ve been getting a lot of questions over the past few days about Seroquel. That usually means I need to put up a new post, especially in light of recent events.

Earlier this week, AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of Seroquel) agreed to pay $520 million to settle a federal inquiry into Seroquel marketing practices. As we have stated before, Seroquel is approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. However, investigators and plaintiffs believe that AstraZeneca marketed the drug for myriad other unapproved uses, including depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, dementia, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

whistle.jpgThere are no criminal charges associated with the deal. Giving credence to plaintiffs’ claims (aside from the credibility arising from the mere fact of a whopping large settlement), is that federal investigators got much of their information from AstraZeneca whistleblowers, drug sales rep, James Wetta (who had some involvement in the whistleblowing at Eli Lilly around 2003).