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