Orlando Injury Lawyer Blog

Another tragic case of a pharmacy injury struck a central Florida woman and a Walgreens customer. Unfortunately, a young teenage pharmacy technician gave the woman a dosage of blood thinner that was 10 times higher than prescribed. As a result of this pharmacy malpractice she suffered a stroke and became paralyzed.

If this was not injury enough, the woman had been undergoing chemotherapy at the time of the pharmacy injury. The stroke required her to stop her chemotherapy and led to the spread of her breast cancer to her lungs and killed her.

A pharmacy malpractice jury found against Walgreens and awarded significant compensation. However, after the trial, Walgreens’ lawyers disagreed as to the amount of the award, but did not appear to deny the improper filling of the prescription.

The importance of this injury and death case is to remind consumers that a pharmacy can make fatal mistakes. That is especially true, where a young pharmacy technician is involved. So next time you go to a Walgreens Pharmacy or a CVS Pharmacy, double check the information on your prescription with what you are given by the pharmacy. By taking a few minutes to check and, if necessary, to question those at the pharmacy, you may prevent a similar tragedy from happening to you or your family.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark:

A judge has upheld a $5 million jury award in a product liability lawsuit over a 1-year-old's death from liver failure after taking an overdose of Infants' Tylenol. The case involved a child who received Infants' Tylenol for three days to treat his cold symptoms and developed acetaminophen toxicity. While Acetaminophen, Tylenol's active ingredient, can lead to liver toxicity, the parents claimed that without proper warning labels and clear directions on the Infants' Tylenol label they had no way of understanding the significance of giving too much to their ill child.

In its defense, the giant pharmaceutical company, McNeil-PPC Inc., owned by Johnson & Johnson, countered that the infant’s injury and death resulted from an unrelated viral hepatic injury and that the parents had failed to follow the medicine's instructions and warnings.
This case brings home the importance of parents understanding the dangers involved with over the counter medicines. Simply because no prescription is necessary for such drugs does not mean that parents can let their guard down. It is very important to understand all of the side effects and whether your child has any contraindications to taking the medicine.

In this case the parents proved that the Infants' Tylenol warning labels were defective and contributed to the child’s death. They testified they would not have given the medicine to their son if it included a warning that it could cause liver damage or death.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark:

Vioxx product liability trials have caused Merck & Company to announce that it will pay $4.85 billion to settle about 27,000 claims over injuries linked to its Vioxx painkiller. Merck said in a statement that the company will pay the money into a settlement fund for qualifying claims that enter into the resolution process and that claims will be evaluated on an individual basis. The company said the agreement was not a class-action settlement.

The agreement represents a change in stance for the pharmaceutical giant, Merck, which earlier had insisted it would fight each Vioxx case. The settlement - one of the biggest ever in civil litigation - comes after almost 20 Vioxx civil trials were held over the last two years.

The amount plaintiffs will receive from the settlement will depend on how long they took the pain medication and the severity of their injuries. The agreement is intended to provide a significant degree of certainty toward resolving the majority of the outstanding Vioxx product liability claims in the United States for a fixed amount according to Merck representatives.

Of course, it is important for victims of Vioxx to timely present their claims and ensure that offers are consistent with their injuries. Vioxx users should be aware that Vioxx became a popular pain medication after it was approved for sale in 1999. From that time forward until Merck pulled the drug from the market in September 2004 due to safety concerns, it was available as a prescription pain reliever.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark:

My recent blog regarding a Texas judge’s ruling in a Vioxx case has stimulated further thought on the effectiveness of the “failure to warn” claim in drug product liability cases. As I shared, Texas may eliminate drug injured plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims in about 900 Vioxx cases if Merck & Co. complied with the FDA’s minimum requirements.

The purpose of this post is not to re-visit that announcement but to expand upon the value of the failure to warn case in drug litigation and the resulting hardship to injured consumers if federal preemption applies. Unlike manufacturing defect and design defect claims, failure-to-warn claims are available and can be proven. These claims provide many opportunities for a jury to consider whether consumers are entitled to more information about dangerous drug side effects.

For example, if the side effect your client suffered was not specifically included in the warnings should it have been? If the drug maker mentions the side effect your client suffered, was the warning clear and effective. Where did the drug maker put the warning- in the section marked "warnings" or "contraindications" on the labeling, or in the section marked "precautions." A jury can appropriately consider whether the warning should have been in a “black box.”

Of course, you should consider whether the manufacturer should have sent a "dear doctor" letter to all physicians telling them about the risk. Perhaps your particular client’s use of the drug creates some issues of adequate and fair warnings. Did your client require or receive a high dose or use the drug for an extended period? Did such circumstances lead to foreseeable injury that should have been identified as part of the labeling?

As you can see, the failure to warn claim is “The Claim” in these drug cases. You must remember that there is more to the plaintiff’s case than just proving inadequate warnings. You must also prove that your client would not have used the drug if properly warned and that the drug is the cause of your client’s injuries. The failure to warn claims help to level the playing field when you go up against a giant drug maker.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Litigation Strategy , Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark:

If you handle Vioxx or other pharmaceutical claims, you can feel the pain of those Vioxx lawyers in Harris County, Texas. State District Judge Randy Wilson, who oversees all state Vioxx claims, told lawyers in the case of Ruby Ledbetter versus Merck & Co. that he plans to issue an order dismissing her failure to warn claims. The judge has decided that a 2003 Texas Tort Reform law applies to the nearly 900 Vioxx cases pending in that state.

While Florida injury lawyers struggle with legislative changes and dread each time Tallahassee gets geared up for a new session, at least we have been spared some of the draconian tort law changes in Texas. To be sure, if the Vioxx judge is correct then the most effective, indeed the only meaningful claim that is often pursued in pharmaceutical cases will be eliminated.

The fair warning issue is the strongest and most persuasive trial theory in these cases. Most people believe that they are entitled to all available information about a drug’s dangerous side effects so that they can make an informed decision whether to take it or not. The fact that the manufacturer complied with FDA minimum standards does not deprive the jury from determining whether consumers were entitled to more. That is unless federal preemption controls your drug case.

The preemption defense in pharmaceutical product liability cases is deadly. If all drug manufacturers have to do is comply with the FDA warnings or insert requirements, and it does, then you have no failure to warn claim. What is left? While you may plead counts for for strict liability, negligence and warranty, but usually those counts can not be successfully supported. You do not usually find evidence of a manufacturing defect or a defectively designed drug. After a manufacturer spent millions and took years to develop and bring the drug to the marketplace, it would prove fruitless to argue that a safer drug could have been designed. Therefore, we should all keep an eye on what happens in Texas.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark:

As Orlando injury lawyers handling pharmaceutical drug cases, the recent Vioxx victory encourages plaintiff lawyers to continue the fight against giant drug maker Merck & Co. A jury in Atlantic City ruled that the painkiller Vioxx contributed to an Idaho postal worker’s heart attack and handed Merck one of its biggest losses over the drug Vioxx so far. The jurors awarded Frederick Humeston and his wife $20 million in compensatory damages Monday morning, then later said Merck should pay $27.5 million in punitive damages.

Mr. Humeston had been granted a second trial in light of new evidence and this Vioxx victory means Merck has now won nine cases and lost five in the Vioxx litigation over its arthritis pill.
Humeston, 61, of Boise, Idaho, suffered a heart attack in September 2001, several months before Merck - under pressure from federal regulators - put a stronger warning about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx on the drug's detailed package insert. A decorated Vietnam veteran, Humeston, had taken Vioxx intermittently for knee pain from shrapnel wound.

The jurors, after deliberating for about five hours over two days, awarded Mr. Humeston $18 million and $2 million to his wife in compensatory damages. The jury also deliberated over Vioxx and Merck’s reprehensible conduct and awarded $27.5 million in punitive damages against the Vioxx maker.

Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after its own research showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke. Nonetheless, during the eight-week trial, Merck lawyers contended Humeston had several risk factors for heart disease, including being overweight and sedentary and having high blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Fortunately, these excuses did not work and the jury kept its focus on Vioxx and the dangers of this dangerous product.

As injury lawyers often fighting against the odds, we admire the perseverance of Humeston and his counsel who lost their first trial against the pharmaceutical giant, Merck. Undaunted, they sought a second trial when evidence surfaced that short-term Vioxx use could also be risky. Merck claimed that Vioxx did not increase cardiac risks until after 18 months of use, however, doctors have found contradictory Vioxx research that show that taking the drug for just two months, like Humeston, is dangerous.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark:

As Orlando injury lawyers, we have championed the rights of children, adults and seniors. The recent efforts of pharmaceutical drug giant, Merck & Co. has directly called into question the rights of both children and their parents to make very personal and private decisions.

Fortunately, this product maker has confronted strong challenges to its recent campaign.

Bowing to pressure from parents and medical groups, Merck & Co. is suspending its lobbying campaign to persuade legislatures to mandate that adolescent girls get the company's vaccine against cervical cancer as a requirement to attend school. The drug maker, which disclosed the change had been soundly criticized for quietly funding the campaign, via a third party, to require 11- and 12-year-old girls get the three-dose vaccine in order to attend school.

Some had objected because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted disease, human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer. Vaccines mandated for school attendance usually prevent diseases spread through casual contact, such as measles and mumps.

"Our goal is about cervical cancer prevention and we want to reach as many females as possible with Gardasil," said Dr. Richard M. Haupt, Merck's medical director for vaccines .
"We're concerned that our role in supporting school requirements is a distraction from that goal, and as such have suspended our lobbying efforts," Haupt said, adding the company will continue providing information about the vaccine if asked by officials.

Merck began selling Gardasil, the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, in June. Sales totaled $235 million through 2006, according to Merck. Last month, the AP reported that Merck was channeling money for its campaign through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators across the country.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark:

The multidistrict litigation over the antipsychotic drug Seroquel has been consolidated in Orlando for evidence-gathering and pre- trial hearings. The federal lawsuits against AstraZeneca, the drug maker, are consolidated as In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1769, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Orlando). This includes claims by more than 7000 plaintiffs.

In their complaints, patients claim that AstraZeneca did not adequately warn of possible side effects, including severe weight gain and risk of diabetes. Many of the suits contend that the company promoted the drug for unapproved uses, contrary to U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. Seroquel, approved for use for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, was marketed for off-label uses, including insomnia, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and Alzheimer's.

As personal injury and medical malpractice lawyers we have seen total disregard for consumer safety by various industries and product makers. However, it is difficult for us to imagine a larger scale of “profit over people” than with pharmaceutical drugs. Here, the drug victims claim that the astronomical growth in sales of Seroquel from $66 million in 1998 to $2.75 billion in 2005, was spurred by AstraZeneca's aggressive, improper marketing of Seroquel. Sadly, thousands of Seroquel victims claim pancreatitis, diabetes or severe exacerbation of existing diabetes from using this drug.

Perhaps, these lawsuits against AstraZeneca Plc, the U.K.'s second- largest drug maker, will deter similar conduct. While no guarantee, we believe that the risk of large punitive damage awards may help focus industry giants a bit more on consumer safety and well-being. From our standpoint these lawsuits appear similar to previous claims filed over injuries from the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa against Eli Lilly & Co. To date, more than 28,000 cases over Zyprexa have settled for approximately $1.2 billion.

Posted by Tony Caggiano | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pharmaceutical Drugs

Bookmark: