Articles Posted in Pfizer

Pfizer and Endo Pharmaceuticals settled with the State of Texas to pay $50 million to settle a lawsuit accusing these drug companies of falsifying drug prices to bleed Texas’ Medicaid program.

As often happens, the case stemmed from a whistleblower lawsuit, this one by Ven-A-Care, who has a history of filing these claims against pharmaceutical companies.

Ven-A-Care is basically four guys who have become professional witness blowers that have made hundreds of millions of dollars for their companies. These guys lie low: they don’t talk to the media and have not spoken publicly since 2004.

Pfizer’s lawyers took their best shot at winning these cases with the only strategy that will work: keep the cases away from a jury that will weigh the evidence.

This strategy took a hit on Tuesday when the MDL judge overseeing the 2,500 Chantix lawsuits in federal court shot down Pfizer’s motion to exclude the general causation and liability opinions of five plaintiff experts.

Judge Inge Prytz Johnson ruled that while Pfizer has interesting arguments, they are jury arguments not “the expert should be excluded” arguments. I’m not sure a jury will be too impressed with hypertechnical attacks on these experts’ methodology as long as they swallow the big picture: these drugs put users at risk for homicidal and suicidal behavior that they would not have committed if there were not on the drugs. It is that simple.

Zoloft can allegedly cause serious birth defects to developing fetuses when ingested during pregnancy. These defects include pulmonary atresia,  deformed limbs, patent ductus arteriosus, ventricular and septal defects, hypoplastic heart syndrome, aortic and ventricular outflow tract obstruction defects, craniosynostosis, omphalocele, gastroschisis, spina bifida, and cleft palate. The lawsuits filed throughout the country allege that Pfizer failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare professionals of these risks. Pfizer denies the association.

Lawsuits alleging birth defects caused by the antidepressant Zoloft/sertraline were consolidated on Tuesday before Judge Cynthia M. Rufe in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. About 92 federal lawsuits – and counting – will be included in this MDL.

What does this mean for Zoloft birth injury plaintiffs? The cases are technically not a class action, but the cases are merged together for discovery on issues common to all the Zoloft birth defect lawsuits. The upside for individual Zoloft birth defect lawyers is the efficiency of pulling together resources to really discover what Pfizer knew about the harmful effects their drugs had on unborn children whose moms were on Zoloft.

Continue Reading

Lt. Daniel Kaffee, that crazy kid, was on to something here. You can apply Kaffee’s logic to Chantix. Chantix is always on the FDA adverse event reports leaderboard, both in terms of breadth and quantity. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. Not always. But usually.

There is certainly enough of a connection between the smoke in Chantix suicide cases. If someone takes Chantix and kills themselves, it will not be difficult to explain to a jury the relationship. It is not a leap to say that if someone has been going through life without killing themselves (obviously), takes Chantix, and then kills themselves, it will be more likely than not that Chantix was a contributing cause. Not definitively connected beyond all reasonable doubt – suicide is too complex of an event for that – but certainly more likely than not to be a contributor.

Continue Reading

MassTortDefense Blog posted about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to not hear a punitive damages case, Wyeth v. Scroggin.

In the first trial, bifurcated on liability and damages, the jury held the drug company responsible to the tune of $2.7 million in compensatory damages, and then $19.4 million in punitive damages. Appeals predictably followed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned the punitive damages award based on some evidence that should not have been permitted. That court then ordered a new trial on punitive damages, only.

The issue that some wanted the Supreme Court to decide was whether a new trial on punitive damages alone was okay, or whether the entire trial had to be redone.

Mylotarg, Pfizer’s leukemia drug that was approved by the FDA in 2000 under an accelerated approval program (early approval for drugs that show particular promise) will be pulled from the market. A continuing study revealed that patients are more likely to die while taking Mylotarg and chemotherapy than those who undergo chemotherapy, alone. That study was prematurely stopped last August (ten months ago? What’s the deal with the delay between the study results and pulling the drug from the market?)

One physician from the Cleveland Clinic noted that the drug did cause disease remission; unfortunately, it also caused increased toxicity which was oftentimes fatal.

If you are taking this drug, be sure to consult with your physician about whether you should continue to take it.

Since Monday, there have been decisions in two hormone therapy cases. Here are the details:

Monday, February 22-Audrey Singleton: In the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a jury found for the Plaintiff and against Pfizer/Wyeth. The verdict, which came after a four-hour deliberation, was for $9.45 million ($3.25 in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages, with $200,000 to the plaintiff’s husband for loss of consortium). The plaintiff was on hormone therapy for six years, before being diagnosed with breast cancer, which is currently in remission. Notable about this case is that the plaintiff was on hormone therapy for about a year and a half after the release of the WHI study showing that Prempro increases the risks of cancer. Plaintiff’s lawyers stated that this verdict confirms Wyeth’s actions after the release of the study were irresponsible and negligent.

Wednesday, February 24-Cheryl Foust: Also in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, this case was a defense verdict after six hours of deliberations, on the basis of specific causation. We linked to this case previously—it is the one where the plaintiff’s twin sister also took hormone therapy but did not get breast cancer (both argued that this fact supported their position). Plaintiff was successful in convincing the jury that Wyeth was negligent by not properly warning Ms. Foust’s health care providers about the risks of Prempro and that the failure caused the health care providers to prescribe the drug to Foust. However, the jury found that the drug did not cause her breast cancer. Ms. Foust succumbed to her cancer at the age of 56; the case was brought by her widower.