Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Last month, I took exception to a Drug and Device Law Blog post and wrote a semi snarly retort on the topic of the confidentiality of discovery documents.

Bad move. The Drug and Device Law Blog fired back a response pretty much took my post and beat me over the head with it. Adding insult to injury, they did it with good writing and good humor. I hate it when the bad guys are good and funny. It makes them seem almost human, an idea that fits in poorly with my worldview.

I thought they got some substance just dead wrong and there was lots of room for a good counterattack. But to find the time to write a cogent, witty response to rival theirs? They spit that response out in an hour; I bet. It would take me all day to come up with something and it still would not have been as well written.

Thankfully, my brother jumped in to stand up for me. My brother? Yes, for our purposes here, my brother. Justinian Lane stepped up and wrote the response I wanted to write (link since deleted, unfortunately). Even better, actually.

So instead of beating this topic any further, I’ll comment off-topic to the core issues in this debate and address another fascinating point Justinian makes about the economic disparity between plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense lawyers:

In DDL’s first post, they made a quip about plaintiffs’ lawyers buying Maybachs, and now they’re complaining that “plenty” of plaintiffs’ lawyers have private jets. While I don’t think that the authors of DDL are green with envy over the financial success of a few plaintiffs’ lawyers, plenty of their readership is. By and large, defense lawyers go to better schools than plaintiffs’ lawyers, earn better grades, write better briefs, and I’ll say it – are better lawyers. And they know it. It therefore irritates them to no end that lawyers who they perceive as being inferior to them are more financially successful than they are.

I don’t know that defense lawyers are better trial lawyers than plaintiffs’ lawyers in mass tort cases. Plaintiffs’ lawyers get more reps because, typically, plaintiffs’ lawyers have more trial experience. A lot of great mass tort defense lawyers can go a career without trying a case. I’m not saying they can’t do it effectively when called upon but, like with most things, experience counts. Pharmaceutical companies hire great trial lawyers but if cases are remanded all over the country, they don’t have as deep of a bench as plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Continue Reading

The Drug and Device Law Blog has an articulate rant about plaintiffs’ lawyers jerking around defendants on whether certain documents produced should be deemed confidential. The core of their argument is that plaintiffs’ interests in the battle over confidential documents are either for (1) sport or (2) to shop documents obtained in discovery to the press.

There is some measure of truth to almost the entire post. But it is as if Tiger Woods told the following story: “I was looking forward to a nice Thanksgiving weekend with my family but on Sunday my wife just left. Didn’t say goodbye or anything.” That’s a true story.

Similarly, the Drug and Device Law Blog leaves out a little fact of the story: mass tort defense lawyers are the undisputed kings of making plaintiffs’ lawyers work for pure sport. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in drug and device cases largely just want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible. I think this is a function both of the personality types attracted to these very different jobs (and I’ve done both) and fundamental economics: plaintiffs’ lawyers get paid for success while defense lawyers get paid for working, even if they are just creating work.

Two contrasting Accutane lawsuit updates in the news today:

First, some background. Accutane is used to treat severe acne and has been associated with a host of problems: birth defects, inflammatory bowel disease, injuries to the liver, kidneys, nervous system, and pancreas, dermatological reactions, and even suicide. Roche stopped selling it last year after a 27-year run, citing competition from generics and the 5,000 pending Accutane lawsuits.

Plaintiff’s Verdict: $25.16 Million

In May 2007, Andrew McCarrell emerged victorious in a New Jersey Superior Court Accutane lawsuit against Roche Holding AG. Mr. McCarrell developed inflammatory bowel disease caused by Accutane. (View the full original trial on video, purchase required). That victory was short-lived, as the verdict was appealed and overturned because the trial judge should have allowed the defendants to present statistical evidence—that there were five million drug users.

Continue Reading

As you remember, Fosamax, Merck’s osteoporosis drug, is the subject of much litigation. The question presented is whether the drug causes osteonecrosis of the jaw, which is the death of jawbone tissue.

Judge Keenan, ruling over the federal Fosamax cases from his bench in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), decided that Merck was not entitled to dismissal of the Louise Maley case on the issue of specific causation (essentially, Merck argued that plaintiff could not prove that Fosamax caused her injury. This is different from general causation, which is the argument that Fosamax can cause injuries of this type). The plaintiff did not argue against the dismissal of her strict liability and warranty claims, however. Her case will proceed on a failure to warn claim. See the Order (hat tip: Shearlings Got Plowed). The Maley case will go to trial on April 19, 2010.

So, Plaintiff Maley survived where Bessie Flemings could not—Judge Keenan dismissed her case (set for trial this month) last November on specific causation grounds.

Remember Wyeth v. Levine, U.S. Supreme Court decision that held federal approval of labels drug warning labels does not preclude lawsuits under state law claiming inadequate warnings? Well, the government, through the FDA, has now added a final chapter to that story.

Facts of Wyeth v. Levine

Wyeth v. Levine was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that involved a Vermont musician named Diana Levine who had her right hand amputated after being injected with Phenergan, an anti-nausea medication made by Wyeth, a pharmaceutical company that was later acquired by Pfizer.

Kugel hernia mesh lawsuits are settling, thanks in part to a change in defense counsel. The products, manufactured by Davol, are defective because the plastic ring can break off, causing perforation and infections. Left untreated, these injuries can be fatal. Davol has since eliminated the use of the plastic rings, in favor of a bio-absorbable ring.

Now represented by the New York firm Reed Smith, Davol has signaled a change in thinking to a more reasonable approach—these can be very meritorious cases worthy of settlement, and the expense of litigation is unnecessary. There are about 1,000 cases in the Rhode Island United States District Court MDL, and about 1,200 cases in Providence state court (the manufacturer, Davol, is a Rhode Island company). Right now, 4 federal suits have been settled, and one state claim has been settled. This looks to be the tip of the iceberg, as the parties move toward the first scheduled federal court trial in March 2010. That will be followed shortly thereafter by the first state court case in June 2010. The settlements will probably come in rapid numbers, now that discovery is coming to a close and the trials quickly approach.

For more on Kugel Mesh lawsuits and settlements, see our prior blog post.

The FDA is now requiring the makers of two prescription topical testosterone gel products to include a boxed warning on the labels. The move comes after reports of inadvertent exposure to eight children, aged nine months to five years. The drug is topically applied on the shoulders, arms, or abdomen. When transferred to children through secondary exposure (for example, children touching skin covered in the gel), the drug can cause enlargement of the genitalia, premature development of pubic hair, advanced bone age, and aggressive behavior.

The manufacturers of these products, Solvay Pharmaceuticals (AndroGel 1%) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals (Testim 1%), already warn against exposure to the drug by children; however, the black box warning will enhance the visibility of the warning on the package inserts. Black box warnings are among the strongest safety measures the FDA can take, being reserved for medications with serious or life-threatening dangers.

There’s nothing to indicate that the companies did anything wrong—the dangers of secondary exposure are clearly noted in PDR guides, which warn against allowing others to come into contact with gel-covered skin. And of course, doctors who prescribe the medication should warn their patients about these risks.