Articles Posted in Wyeth

Published on:

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals knocked out a Prempro wrongful death case, finding that Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations has no exception for drug product liability claims.

The court found that under Mississippi law (and most states, unfortunately) a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff has knowledge of the injury, not knowledge of the injury and its cause.
You can find the unpublished opinion in Bryant v. Wyeth here.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

The Supreme Court rejected Pfizer’s appeal in the Scroggins, where a jury rendered a compensatory damages verdict of $2.75 million. Pfizer wanted the Supreme Court to order a new trial on the entire case—compensatory and punitive damages, as well as causation. The trial jury decided on $27 million for punitive damages, and Pfizer will get a new trial on that.

Wyeth has lost seven out of eleven cases (at the trial level) since 2006.
For more on the hormone therapy backstory, see our prior Drug Recall Lawyer Blog posts.

Published on:

In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the plaintiffs are appealing to the United States Supreme Court from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They believe that the administrative set-up of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (established in 1988) is an insufficient remedy for vaccine-related injuries. Under the Act, designed to encourage drug companies to create vaccines, injured consumers receive damages under a no-fault system, decided by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The petition was granted on March 8.

In this case, the Bruesewitz’s child received a standard DPT vaccine, which caused seizures and permanent neurological injury. The question presented is whether the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all vaccine design defect claims, regardless of whether the vaccine’s side effects were unavoidable.

So what do you think? Has the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act outlived its usefulness (assuming it was useful to begin with)?

Posted in:
Published on:
Published on:

Prempro-pills-02-25-10.jpgSince 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.