Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.

A class-action lawsuit on behalf of women who say they developed breast cancer after taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT), was certified by the British Columbia Supreme Court this week. The lawsuit alleges the makers of the HRTs Premarin and Premplus failed to warn patients about studies that showed a link between HRT and breast cancer. The lawsuit also claims that the company went to extraordinary measures to sway doctors and downplay any publicized risks associated with the drugs.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Thousands of women who claim their hormone replacement therapy (HRT) caused them to develop breast cancer and other deadly diseases and conditions may finally have some resolution, now that Pfizer Inc. has announced it expects to shell out an additional $300 million to settle the last of more than 10,000 product liability lawsuits. The drug giant has already paid $472 million to settle with plaintiffs.

Read the rest of this entry »

William T. Creasman was listed as the author of an article written by a freelance writer for the December 1998 Journal of Women’s Health. The title: “Is there an association between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer?” The article points out that there is no “definitive evidence” that HRT is linked to breast cancer. But the dirty little secret behind that article in the medical journal is that Creasman didn’t actually write the article. It was authored by a writer for DesignWrite, a marketing firm that represented HRT-maker Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer. As the story was going to press, Wyeth was covering up evidence that proved otherwise. The drug company’s estrogen-plus-progestin HRT was, in fact, increasing a woman’s risk for breast cancer as well as heart disease and Alzheimer’s.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Drug maker Wyeth has developed and is actively testing a new drug to treat menopause. The drug, named Aprela, has shown favorable results in the initial studies. Current evidence gathered in the study suggests that the drug may pose fewer risks and milder side effects than Prempro and Premarin, Wyeth’s other menopause drugs.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

A North Dakota woman has filed a federal lawsuit against several pharmaceutical companies, claiming the hormone replacement drugs she was prescribed led to breast cancer. Sharon Hesch of Minot, is seeking at least $75,000 and additional punitive damages against Wyeth Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., Pharmacia and Upjohn Co., and Pfizer, Inc. Hesch”s husband, James, is included as a plaintiff.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Reno trial involving three breast cancer survivors who are suing Wyeth is now nearing the end of its fourth week. The Nevada plaintiffs are suing Wyeth, the manufacturer of Prempro and Premarin, after they each developed breast cancer attributed to their long-term use of combination hormone replacement drugs.

Read the rest of this entry »