› $150,000,000 verdict in personal injury case
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Pfizer over its hormone replacement therapy (HRT) Prempro, which means the pharmaceutical company will have to pay three Nevada women nearly $58 million. Pfizer claimed that plaintiffs attorneys biased the jury during closing arguments, which led to the jury awarding $134.1 to the three women. That award was later reduced to $57.6 million.
For years, Mrs. Smith* chose not to take hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to treat bothersome symptoms of menopause. During menopause, some women become “estrogen deficient” – their estrogen level drops so low that they experience symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats and vaginal dryness that can be so severe it interferes with a woman’s quality of life.
Mrs. Smith talked to her doctor, who recommended Prempro, a pill made by Wyeth that contains a mixture of estrogen and synthetic progestin hormones. The pills were also marketed to doctors and women as a miracle drug that tamed not only menopausal symptoms but also had the added benefit of protecting women against heart disease and osteoporosis. HRT became widely prescribed, and Wyeth racked in billions in profits.
The message was heard loud and clear – powerful drug companies that make billions from products they know pose a significant risk of life-threatening health consequences to the people who take them, owe their victims. Big time.
This week, Pfizer, which recently acquired Wyeth, the makers of the hormone replacement therapies (HRT) Prempro and Premarin, were hit with more than $100 million in two punitive-damage awards from Philadelphia juries. The two plaintiffs, Connie Barton and Donna Kendall, claimed the drugs caused their breast cancer.
Drug maker Wyeth paid ghostwriters to write articles for medical journals that were favorable to the company’s hormone replacement therapy (HRT) Prempro , even after the drug was found to raise a woman’s risk for breast cancer and other serious health concerns, according to newly unveiled court documents. Medical journals such as The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and The International Journal of Cardiology name doctors as authors of articles that typically involve heavily research topics and offer a judgment on how to treat a particular condition. It is believed that doctors are often swayed by those published opinions and may be influenced by them when prescribing medication to their patients.
U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. has ordered scientific data collected by the Cancer Research Center since August 2005 as a follow up to a study on the effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on postmenopausal women should be released to Wyeth Pharmaceuticals as it defends itself against numerous lawsuits over the safety of its HRT meds.
Nevada’s attorney general is suing drug makers Wyeth and Pfizer for alleged deceptive trade practices and misleading the public about the safety of its hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drugs, according to RGJ.com.
A Jasper County woman has filed a federal lawsuit against Pfizer and Wyeth, claiming the hormone therapy drugs manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies caused her breast cancer.
Scharlotte Fitzgerald says she began taking hormone replacement drugs in 1994. In 2001 she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
Fitzgerald and her husband Larry filed a personal injury suit against the drug companies in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas on Nov. 2. They are seeking in excess of $75,000 in damages.
“This lawsuit asserts claims for negligence; strict product liability for failure to warn, strict product liability for design defect; and breach of implied warranty against the defendants responsible for the design, manufacture, production, testing, study, inspection, mixture, labeling, marketing, advertising, sales, promotion and/or distribution of those hormone therapy products that caused her breast cancer,” the plaintiffs’ original complaint states.
The plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants had an obligation to provide warnings about risks and side effects of their hormone therapy drugs as soon as it was aware of them. The suit alleges that the drug companies failed to disclose “an increased incidence and risk of strokes, blood clots, heart attacks, breast cancers and ovarian cancer from these drugs.”
Plaintiffs also assert that the defendants made claims regarding health benefits of the drugs and should have known “that these claims were false and misleading.”
The defendants also gave a false impression that adequate pre-marketing clinical testing and research and post-marketing surveillance had been done, the plaintiffs claim.
“Plaintiff would not have ingested the hormone therapy drugs … or would have discontinued their use, or would have used safer alternative methods, had defendants disclosed the true health consequences, risks, and adverse effects, including the increased incidence and risk of breast cancer and other illnesses, caused by their hormone drugs,” the complaint states.
In the first claim against defendants, the plaintiff alleges that the companies were negligent by failing to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, testing and distributing the hormone replacement drugs.
“Defendants knew or should have known that their hormone therapy drugs caused unreasonable harm and dangerous side effects that many users would be unable to remedy by any means,” the petition states. “Despite this, defendants continued to promote and market their hormone therapy drugs for use by consumers, including plaintiff, when safer and more effective methods of countering the negative health effects of menopause were available.”
The petition also includes claims for strict liability through failure to warn and design defect.
“These hormone therapy drugs were each dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchased them,” the suit says. “They were more dangerous than plaintiff contemplated. The risk of each of these hormone therapy drugs outweighs its utility.”
The companies also breached implied warranty, the suit said, because the sold the drugs as being of “merchantable quality and safe and fit for their intended use.”
Scharlette Fitzgerald is seeking damages to exceed $75,000, attorney fees, costs of suit and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.
Her husband, Larry Fitzgerald is also seeking monetary damages for his loss of spousal services, society and companionship.
Wyeth must pay $134.1 million, including $99 million in punitive damages, over its mishandling of menopause drugs that helped cause three Nevada women’s cancers, a jury ruled.
