Lawsuit against Wyeth | Arthritis Information

I heard a radio report that a woman is suing Wyeth for an anti-nausea shot that caused gangrene and the loss of her arm. Report said she is supported by prosecutors and some doctors. I don't have the details yet but should be coming out soon.

Jan

OMG.. that's horrible!! too sad.

thanks..keep us posted, Jan.

Just found article blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/18/supremes-to-hear-wyeth-appeal-on-68-million-amputation

Jan

well.. wouldn't some of the liability fall on the medical personnel who injected it in that manner overriding the warning on the label??

Don't know. Supreme Court is going to hear case.

Really sad this happened.

Jan

[QUOTE=babs10]well.. wouldn't some of the liability fall on the medical personnel who injected it in that manner overriding the warning on the label?? THe blog I quoted has a Friend of the Court statement by the plaintiff's father. It give his argument for Wyeth's liability.

Jan

certainly they do! I hate the sue mentallity of things.. though someone should pay for this mistake.. I just don't see Wyeth's liability when they specifically warn.

I'm sure there would be a settlement from Wyeth.. the bad press would warrant that.

I hope she gets something for her suffering.. :(

The question is - how long did Wyeth know there where problems and when did they modify the packaging and most importantly - were they hiding other info too.

Jan, where is the Friend of the Court link - I'm not seeing it.

Pip

Pip-

THe Friend of the Court statement is at the end of the blog. It is part of the blog.

Jan

In 2000, an anti nausea med was administered "push IV injection" to Levine in ER which resulted in Levine developing gangrene in her arm and having to have it amputated. Levine won her lawsuit in state court against Wyeth. A Vermont jury found Wyeth liable for failing to change the drug’s labeling to eliminate the IV push injection from approved ways to administer the drug. In 2000, Wyeth changed the warning and administration instructions.

Whether or not Wyeth was negligent in its instructions however is not the question before the Supreme Court, who will hear this case in November. The question presented before the Court by the drug maker, Wyeth is: Whether prescription drug labels approved by the FDA, "preempt" a state liability lawsuit based on the argument that a different label would have made the drug safer for use.

What is noteworthy, is that not until Bush's appointment of Daniel Troy (who represented drug companies before and after his appt) as chief counsel of the FDA in 2001, has the argument of "federal preemption" been used to restrict consumers from bringing drug liability lawsuits in state courts. Troy's predecessor, Margaret Porter, a career official, wrote in 1997 that the FDA had a long-standing policy against preemption, because "even the most thorough regulation of a product such as a critical medical device may fail to identify potential problems presented by the product.... Preemption of all such [tort liability] claims would result in the loss of a significant layer of consumer protection."

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Wyeth, injured consumers would be restricted from bringing state court lawsuits, where safety standards can be tougher than those at the federal level, against drug makers. The outcome afffects not only Levine but potentially anyone who takes prescription meds -- its a matter of consumer rights vs. corporate rights.

A footnote, as of Aug 2008, Levine has not seen any of her jury award of more than million that resulted from her lawsuit against Wyeth.

You can google Wyeth vs. Levine for more info. The following website is a brief interview with Levine.

http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/wyeth-takes-on-diana-levine-and-preemption-issue-in-us-supreme-court-case.aspx?googleid=245728

The following link is to an article about Daniel Troy, Chief Counsel of FDA from 2001-2004, and his "preemption" agenda which "allows the White House to use its regulatory power to achieve what big businesses haven't been able to do through legislation, which is immunize themselves from lawsuits over defective products."

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/daniel-troy-fda-preemption.html