Blog Topic

Why You Should be Interested in Pre-emption
March 31, 2008

The US Supreme Court is getting ready to hear an appeal by pharmaceutical giant Wyeth in the case of Wyeth vs. Levine. The case involves a pianist, Diana Levine, who lost her right arm after she received the drug Phenargan through her vein for a migraine headache. Levine filed a lawsuit and won $6.8 million in a state court. Wyeth is now appealing the decision. Wyeth is arguing that federal law should pre-empt certain product liability lawsuits brought against corporations in state courts. If Wyeth prevails this would mean that if a drug was approved by the FDA and met all FDA safety standards, the state has no right to pass a judgment against the company.

It's far from a unique case, and across the country murmurs of dissent are being heard as litigation lawyers argue for the right of individuals to be able to sue corporations for injuries caused by products that are approved by federal agencies. It's not only the drug industry that may be affected by pre-emption rules. If you bought a blender that was approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for instance, and it burst into flames injuring you, federal pre-emption wouldn't allow you to sue the manufacturer in state court.

Pre-emption is the best friend of the corporate defense attorney. Some even call it a corporation's "get out of jail free" card. What it does is allow corporations to get out of having to pay for their negligence because a federal agency approved the product. Not only that, states would find their right to enact laws to protect citizens' health and safety severely restricted.

The move towards pre-emption has been particularly high during the Bush administration. Agencies have recently passed rules protecting a dozen drug companies and other corporations from product liability lawsuits. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received a proposal from 26 states asking for dropping of lawsuit protection granted to auto manufacturers. Injured persons' medical expenses have to be borne by state and federal governments, when they should actually be the sole responsibility of the company, the states argued. As of now, the National Highway Safety Administration has not dropped the lawsuit protection.

The fight against pre-emption hasn't left celebrities untouched. Actor Dennis Quaid is preparing to fight exactly such a pre-emption when he goes to court against Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Quaid's twin babies became seriously sick when they were injected up to 100 times the prescribed dosage of heparin. Their suit alleges that Baxter should have changed its packaging after it found that 3 babies had died at another hospital earlier.

There can be no two ways about it. The threat of litigation is the only thing that can keep corporations on their toes and focused on ensuring the quality of their products. Take that fear away, and you have a framework for further negligence and carelessness. Companies that make billions of dollars don't need the protection of the federal government. It's the common man with no money to pay his medical expenses after being injured by a product that's been cleared by federal agencies, who should be defended at all costs.

If you have suffered adverse side effects from a dangerous pharmaceutical drug, you need the help of an experienced California personal injury lawyer. Contact an attorney at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

Eli Lily Company Settlement with Alaska
March 27, 2008

Eli Lily Company and the state of Alaska have agreed on a $15 million settlement over the use of the drug Zyprexa in the state's Medicaid program. It may seem like a small amount until you consider the population of the state which numbers at just 670,000 residents. It's said to be the largest such suit in the state, and it ensures that Alaska will be treated on par with other states who have cases pending against the company, all concerning the anti-schizophrenia drug, Zyprexa.

The lawsuit related to the Medicaid expenses that the state of Alaska had to pay outpatients who contracted diabetes after using the Zyprexa drug. Zyprexa, is meant to treat schizophrenic disorders and it helps calm the hallucinations and delusions that are indicative of schizophrenia and bipolar disease. It also has numerous not so desirable side effects, including weight gain, cholesterol increase and diabetes.

As it turns out the company conveniently forgot to inform Medicaid providers and other users that the drug had severe long-term side effects like diabetes. Zyprexa at the time was a blockbuster drug, with sales totaling more than $4 billion last year alone. Not only was no warning about the side effects of the drug given, but the company actually pushed its promotional campaigns to drive sales further. There were reports that Eli Lily had pushed doctors to prescribe the drug to children - the drug was not meant for anyone under the age of 18.

Damning testimony in the Alaska case came from medical experts who claimed that the company had had ample time to warn the public of Zyprexa's side effects. According to Dr. John Gueriguian, who testified at the hearing, Eli Lily "put profit over concern of the consumer." By the fall of 1998, it was apparent that Zyprexa was causing side effects like weight gain and diabetes, and this was bought to the company's notice by doctors who were prescribing these drugs. But Eli Lily chose to remain silent. Documents also showed that the company was accumulating evidence of the drug's side effects but chose not to share it with doctors.

That was not all. When Zyprexa was introduced in Japan in 2002, medical regulations in this country required Eli Lily to warn doctors of the risk of diabetes with the use of Zyprexa. In the US, however, sales representatives were asked not to proactively discuss the diabetes connection, in other words they had a "don't ask don't tell" kind of policy where the representative would admit the drug caused diabetes only if the doctor inquired about it.

It's hard to find a more glaring example, of corporate greed for profits over the safety and well being of the consumer. You have to wonder why Alaska decided to settle so easily, and why for less than the $200 million it was originally holding out for. The coming months will show whether other states will follow the same path as Alaska.

If you have suffered the adverse side effects of a drug like Zyprexa, you need the help of an experienced California personal injury lawyer. Contact an attorney at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

Eli Lilly Lawsuit Begins
March 07, 2008

Opening arguments by lawyers for the state of Alaska in the case against Eli Lilly claimed that the Indiana-based drug maker downplayed the risks of its anti-schizophrenia drug Zyprexa, leading to weight gain and diabetes in patients.

In January of this year, Eli Lilly and Co. settled a total of 900 personal injury claims against Zyprexa, although the amount of the settlements wasn't revealed. Of these settlements, 5 were cases that were set to go to trial in February. In all, Lilly has settled 25,000 cases relating to Zyprex, with about 1,100 cases remaining unsettled.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in these cases argued that Lilly company executives knew of the potential dangers of Zyprexa, but deliberately played down the side effects so sales of the antipsychotic drug wouldn't be affected. The lawsuit that has just begun in Alaska seeks to make Lilly pay for the medical expenses of Medicaid patients who have developed diabetes after taking Zyprexa.

Zyprexa is prescribed for patients with schizophrenia, and many of these patients are unemployed and dependant on Medicaid for their treatment.

The Alaska case is important because it is the first lawsuit relating to Zyprexa that has made its way to trial. For a long time now, Lilly, like many other pharmaceutical companies, has chosen to buy its way into silence. It has chosen to settle for undisclosed amounts. So far the company has spent a staggering $1.2 billion on settling cases. This case is being closely watched across the country as the lawyers for the state seek to prove that the company was aware of the potential side effects of the drug and pushed through with it anyway.

Eli Lilly's lawyers defended Zyprexa, saying the benefits far outweighed the potential risks.

If the state wins, it could bring hundreds of millions in damages for the patients whose medication it has provided.

Another allegation being probed is that Lily encouraged doctors between 2000 and 2003 to prescribe Zyprexa for those patients who had mild bipolar disorders, and age dementia. Zyprexa, with its side effects, is recommended only for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Although doctors can prescribe medicines for any reason once they have been on the market and approved by the FDA, a drug company is not allowed to promote the drugs for purposes other than those approved by the FDA. A blind greed for profits is the only way you can explain this company's behavior. Unfortunately we're seeing such behavior more and more often in this country from the biggest names in the pharmaceutical business. Companies flout the laws to suit their purposes, and buy silence when the heat gets intense.

Meanwhile patients who have contracted diabetes as a result of Zyprexa, already mentally ill people who have now to contend with a life-altering disease like diabetes, will have to live with this condition through no fault of their own. This manipulation of innocent patients by drug companies for their own profits has to stop somewhere. Let's hope Alaska shows the way.

If you have suffered adverse side effects of a dangerous drug, you need the help of an experienced California personal injury lawyer. Contact an attorney at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

Pharmaceutical Companies Increasing Influence on Doctors
March 05, 2008

We've always known that drug companies use various tactics to get though to doctors to have them prescribe their medicines. Gifts aren't unheard of, and are commonly accepted as part of the trade. In the last month alone, we have seen a doctor, a medical pioneer in fact, do ad spots for a pharmaceutical company which was based on the false premise that he was in better shape than he actually is.

This connection between doctors and drug companies has always troubled consumer rights experts who fear that all this hobnobbing between doctors and drug companies can't be good for patients. Influence of the drug companies should be placed at a minimum, many believe, in order to guarantee independence of a doctor's judgment.

Now comes an Australian new report which points to the not so obvious ways that drug companies use to influence doctors. The report says that drug companies use another, somewhat devious method to influence doctors - by approving guests speaker who will speak at medical conferences.

The participation of drug companies in these August conferences is nothing new - drug companies routinely sponsor these conferences. That by itself is harmless enough. If they restrict their level of participation to decorating the venue with their posters, and adding a big welcome banner to the entrance, there can't be much harm in it. However, their participation, the report concludes, has definitely moved in recent times to a stronger role. Many of these companies make sure their preferred speakers are the speakers at these conferences. The speaker, chosen by the company, uses his address to drop names of the drug the company is trying to push in a blatant form of subliminal advertising.

This form of interference, in what should be independent medical education, is far from uncommon it appears, and shows the extent to which the drug industry has infiltrated the medical profession. Doctors attending these conferences are not made aware that the speaker has been suggested by the drug company, and here lies the debate. Medical experts say that doctors should be made aware that any address they are listening to is being made by a doctor who has been suggested by the drug company sponsoring the conference. It helps them keep an open mind about what they are listening to. If you were told that there might be some bias in what you were listening to, you might be inclined to be more alert to any influences.

The issue of sponsorship of medical conferences has come under scrutiny, with experts asking for a blind trust fund to sponsor continuing medical education. Some patient right experts have even suggested that tax payers could pay for advanced education of doctors.

We might not want to pin our hopes too highly on something like this happening in the near future though. The world's largest manufacturer, Pfizer, posted revenues of $48.6 billion in 2007. That kind of revenues depends, to a large extent, on spreading their influence on the doctors prescribing their drugs.

If you have suffered adverse side effects while using a dangerous drug, you need the help of an experienced California personal injury law firm. Contact an attorney at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

Rush for Profits Causes Prescription Errors
February 15, 2008

According to USA Today, greedy corporate policies, like encouraging or forcing pharmacists to fill out more prescriptions and offering incentives and bonuses for fast work, are contributing to an increase in the number of pharmacy errors that are taking place. A 2003 study in fact, pegged the odds of getting a prescription with a serious life threatening error filled at 1 in a 1000. Those are high numbers when you consider the number of prescriptions filled every day in this country.

A 2004 case highlighted the dangers of prescription errors and the fact that drugstore companies are creating ideal conditions for more errors to take place through their work policies. Five-year-old Trey Green who was prescribed Inderal to control his hand tremors, was instead given a steroid, Methitest, that is given to older males whose bodies aren't producing enough testosterone. Not only that, it was filled a total of 4 times, and little Trey ended up receiving double the recommended adult dosage of the steroid. The result? He went into premature puberty and began to display rages. The prescription was filled at Walgreens', one of the largest drug stores in the US, and the shocking fact of the matter is that when Trey's parents contacted their doctor to complain that his medicine wasn't helping their child, he increased the dosage. Unbelievably enough, Walgreens' made another mistake with this prescription too. Trey's parents sued Walgreens. The Jones' have no idea of the extent of the damage to their son's health. They will only learn as he gets older. His height could be compromised as a result of the steroid use, and some form of liver damage is a possibility, doctors say.

This wasn't the only horror story emerging from prescription errors. In 2001, 16-day-old Benjamin Goldberg was prescribed up to 5 times the recommended amount at a CVS pharmacy. When his father complained to the state pharmacy board, they found that the pharmacist who had filled Benjamin's prescription had filled a total of 400 prescriptions on that particular day. This kind of pushing the employees to fill more prescriptions, experts say, is what's causing these increasing and serious errors.

According to a USA Today study, which lays bare the frightening facts, staff at Walgreens and CVS work on a schedule that seems to stress speed in filling prescriptions rather than accuracy. The average time for a Walgreen prescription to be filled is a mere 2 minutes. The pharmacist is expected to get the medicine, dosage and instructions right in these two minutes. It's not hard to see where the errors are coming form.

Pharmacists themselves say that the pressure to rush towards filling prescriptions is huge. It's not uncommon, they say, to have 100 prescriptions waiting to be filled at the start of the day. What makes matters worse is that there are no regulatory guidelines that say a particular volume of prescriptions is too much, so the likes of Walgreens and CVS are free to set any target they want.

The US spends the equivalent of the GDP of a few dozen countries on its healthcare system, yet ranks among the lowest among industrialized nations in the quality of healthcare given to citizens. Whatever else we agree or disagree on, we universally agree that our health care system is a national embarrassment. The insurance companies fill their coffers, while millions are denied access to health care, and doctors push medicines and medical devices for profit. These prescription errors are just another example of the disregard to public health by companies who put profits ahead of safety.

If you have suffered adverse side effects from dangerous or incorrectly prescribed drugs, you need the help of a top California personal injury lawyer. Contact the attorneys at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

Subpoenas Issued against Prodisc Company
February 07, 2008

The New York Times reports that the New Jersey Attorney's Office has issued subpoenas to two companies, the Swiss medical technology group Synthes and Viscogliosi Brothers, a New York based investment group. The subpoenas are related to the ties that researchers and surgeons who approved the use of Prodisc had with the financial success of the product.

Prodisc is an artificial spinal disc that's especially indicated in cases of spinal arthoplasty in patients who have degenerative disc disease and who have no relief from pain medication for at least 6 months prior.

When the findings of the research conducted into its benefits was made public in 2006, doctors like Jack E. Zigler were effusive in their praise for the artificial disc, claiming it gave patients a new found mobility, and that it was "gratifying" to watch patients return to some semblance of their normal life after the insertion of the disc.

As it turns out, all that "gratification" might have been heightened by the lure of greenbacks - doctors at at least half of the 17 research centers involved in the study had invested in the product, it was later revealed. While doctors promoting a product or device with some expectation of rewards is not that uncommon, this case is strikingly different because the doctors here were supposed to be impartial and objective observers studying the benefits of a new product. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that when researchers have a financial stake in the object of their study, the conclusions might mirror their own financial ambitions rather than the actual benefits of the product.

This is exactly what seems to have happened in the Prodisc case. Later investigations revealed that data from a disproportionately high number of subjects was ignored or left out of the conclusions. As many as 21 subjects or 10 percent of the total number of subjects were left out of the conclusions. Medical research experts say 10 percent is an unusually high number of people to be excluded from the results.

Many of these subjects, it now turns out, did not do well with the artificial disc at all. One patient, Calvin Timberlake, had the disc implanted after it got FDA approval. The disc came apart right after implantation, necessitating another surgery. He has filed a lawsuit against Synthes.

The influence of commercial and financial interests is so prevalent in the spinal surgery field that a bunch of doctors have grouped together to form the Association for Ethics in Spine Surgery. They see relations between the spinal surgeons and the device industry getting progressively friendlier, and fear that doctors seem to be swayed by profits and shareholder prices, rather than the medical efficacy of the device.

The FDA allows doctors to have a financial stake in the devices they are studying as long as these relationships are fully disclosed. As of now, it's still not clear if all details of these financial ties in the Prodisc case were revealed to the FDA.

If you have been injured by a defective medical product, then you need the help of an experienced California personal injury law firm. Contact a lawyer at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

Merck to Pay $4.85 Billion in Vioxx Case
November 13, 2007

In one of the largest ever settlements in civil litigation history, Merck agreed to pay a grand total of $4.85 billion to settle more than 27,000 lawsuits filed by people who were injured or had a family member injured or die as a result of taking the Vioxx drug. The amount might seem staggering but is less than the annual profits of the company, America's third largest drug company.

The drug at the center of all the attention, Vioxx was withdrawn by Merck in 2004 after reports that it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. According to insider information however, the company's researchers had been aware all the while about Vioxx's potential side effects but did nothing about it. Even the results of a clinical trial as far back as 2000 showed clearly that Vioxx was riskier than another painkiller, naproxen. But no attempts were made to pull back the drug.

Merck lost the first case that went to trial when a jury awarded a $253.5 million verdict in favor of Carol Ernst whose husband died after taking Vioxx for less than a year. The settlement only holds if at least 85 percent of the plaintiffs agree to the settlement. Plaintiffs will receive different settlement amounts depending upon the severity of their injuries and the length of time they took Vioxx. Plaintiffs who do not accept the settlement are free to pursue their own claims against Merck. Even if the settlement is approved, this does not end Merck's legal troubles. The drug company still faces both civil and criminal investigations by several states and the U.S. Justice Department.

If you have been injured as the result of taking Vioxx or any other prescription drug, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries. Contact the California personal injury lawyers at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

Jury Awards $134 Million Judgment against Drug Company
October 17, 2007

Three Nevada women were awarded $99 million in punitive damages by a Washoe County District Court jury on Monday in a lawsuit filed against pharmaceutical company Wyeth. This brings the total judgment to $134 million. The company has decided to appeal the judgment.

Jeraldine Scofield, 74, Arlene Rowatt, 67 and Pamela Forrester, 64, who had filed the suit alleging that use of Wyeth's hormone replacement drugs lead to their breast cancer, were awarded punitive damages of $33million, $31 million and $35 million respectively. These punitive damages were in addition to the $10.5 million, $12 million and $12.5 million awarded to the three Nevada women in compensatory damages last week. An amendment to the last week's figure of compensatory damages was incorporated by the Washoe District Judge Robert Perry as some of the jurors seemed to have erroneously included the punitive damages in the total of $134.5 before the punitive stage of the trial was actually held.

For Wyeth, a $14.6 billion company, this award against them is the largest so far. The Reno court case was one of almost 5,300 identical lawsuits pending against the company in various state and federal courts. All these cases relate to complaints against their drugs Premarin and Pempro - the first one an estrogen replacement and the other a combination of estrogen and progestin - both meant for administration in menopause related complications.

If you or some one close to you suffers because of defective or unsafe drugs, contact the personal injury attorneys at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

US Inquiry Leads to Intensifying of Drug Safety Warning
October 16, 2007

After a US inquiry into the safety of the drug Definity, a heart test drug manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the company has announced that it will intensify warnings about the safety of the drug.

The Definity drug is a form of gas enclosed in a capsule that when released makes the borders of the heart clearer allowing doctors monitoring ultra sound images of the heart to rule out small clots and observe any abnormalities on the heart wall.

The drug's new alert warns that serious cardio pulmonary reactions have taken place in some users within 15 minutes of the administration of the drug. The new safety regulations regarding Definity have already been posted on the Food and Drug Administration's website and the FDA announced it was working with the company to alert health care professionals of the risks and approved prescription procedures to be followed before administration of the drug. The new safety warning is reflected in a black box on the FDA site, indicating the seriousness of the safety advice.

According to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. representatives, the changes in safety warnings have been made to facilitate more judicious use of the drug which they claim has huge beneficial medical effects if administered properly. The new safety warnings for Definity might help prevent adverse and possibly fatal reactions in patients who are administered the drug.

If you or a loved-one has been injured by a prescription or over the counter medication, contact the personal injury attorneys at The Reeves Law Group for a free consultation.

Permalink

New York Sues Merck Over Vioxx
September 19, 2007

Three years after pharmaceutical giant Merck withdrew its Vioxx painkiller from the market after reports that it caused an increase in cardiovascular diseases, New York State and the City of New York have jointly sued Merck for concealing vital information about the painkiller. The lawsuit is seeking restitution to the tune of millions of dollars spent on Vioxx through Medicaid. Each state, including California, prepares lists of drugs that it is willing to pay for. The lawsuit alleges that had the State been aware of the potential side effects of Vioxx, it would have gone with cheaper alternatives instead. The lawsuit has been jointly filed by the Attorney General's Office and the office of the Mayor.

Last year, Merck was the subject of a Vioxx related lawsuit in California. 71-year-old Stewart Grossberg claimed that the Vioxx he had been taking since 1999 to manage joint pain caused him serious heart ailments. Grossberg sought $214,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from Merck.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in this more recent lawsuit it is alleged that Merck purposely neglected to convey information about Vioxx that would have alerted authorities to the painkiller's potential cardiovascular risks.

This latest lawsuit is just one, although a high profile one, of the 28,000 lawsuits pending against Merck across the country, all related to Vioxx. The very first settlement with Merck was in 2005 in the amount of $253.4 million dollars.

Drug companies have a responsibility to ensure their product is safe before it is sold in pharmacies. If drug prescribed to you led to a serious injury or condition, you need an experienced drug liability attorney to help you recover financial compensation for your losses. Call the personal injury attorneys at The Reeves Law Group.

Permalink