Vested Interest - Tort Briefs - October 2005 Issue

Man Prevails in DuPont Suit

A jury returned a verdict for a fisherman who claimed chemicals from a DuPont factory caused his rare blood cancer, multiple myeloma. He was awarded actual damages in the first of 1,996 lawsuits involving the plant. His wife also received an award for loss of love and companionship. The jury will meet again to decide on punitive damages. (ATLA Law News Digest – September 1, 2005)

California Accuses Drug Companies of Fraud

The attorney general of California sued 39 drug companies, accusing them of bilking the state of hundreds of millions of dollars by overcharging for medicines. The attorney general charged that drug makers defrauded the state’s Medi-Cal system for at least the past decade, charging the state as much as 10 times the price for some drugs as they charged others, like private pharmacies and hospitals. Medi-Cal is the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program for the poor. The case was consolidated in federal court with similar litigation filed by more than ten other states and localities, including New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois. (ATLA Law News Digest – September 1, 2005)

Birth Control to Blame for Brain Clot

A Colorado woman and nine others across the nation filed suit against the maker of Ortho Evra claiming they suffered "substantial physical injuries" from using the contraceptive patch. The suit claims the patch is "unreasonably dangerous," that the risk disclosures on the product label are inadequate and that the chances of suffering a blood clot are much higher with the patch than birth-control pills. The lawsuit was filed in July in New Jersey, the headquarters of Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Ortho McNeil, the patch’s manufacturer. (ATLA Law News Digest – September 8, 2005)

Women Sue Wyeth

Thousands of Americans are filing lawsuits against Wyeth Pharmuceuticals, alleging that its hormone-replacement medications caused breast cancer, blood clots and other serious health problems. The lawsuits allege that Premarin, Provera and Prempro are "dangerous and defective drugs." Wyeth faces between 3,600 and 5,500 lawsuits. (ATLA Law News Digest – September 15, 2005

Court Backs Damage Limits for Uninsured Motorists

An unusually divided Oregon Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law that prevents car accident victims from obtaining non-economic damages if they are uninsured. The case involved a relatively small amount of money, $5,790, but was closely watched. Attorneys for the plaintiff argued she was entitled to non-economic damages from the man who caused the accident. In a 4-3 decision, the court said the law was permissible because limits on recovering damages existed at the time Oregon’s constitutional rights were first adopted in the 19th century. (ATLA Law News Digest – September 15, 2005)

Authorities Targeting Fen-Phen Claims

Spurred by allegations of massive fraud in the $5 billion class-action settlement over fen-phen diet drugs, federal investigators are conducting a nationwide criminal probe into tens of thousands of claims asserting heart damage from the pills. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia and the FBI are examining whether lawyers, doctors and medical technicians conspired to submit bogus claims. Investigators are also trying to root out former fen-phen users who participated in scams to file phony or exaggerated claims. Wyeth created a trust after the first big jury award and expected about 36,000 claims. Instead, more than 87,000 claims were filed. The trust then hired a Duke University cardiologist to review 968 echocardiograms of patients who were about to be paid. The doctor concluded that 70 percent of the tests contained "material misrepresentations" amounting to "pervasive fraud." That report attracted federal prosecutors. (ATLA Law News Digest – September 22, 2005)

Insurer Not Required to Defend Homeowner

A man who killed an intruder in his home in self-defense is not entitled to insurance defense in a wrongful death action, a divided Albany, New York, appellate panel ruled in a case of first impression. The split illustrates a debate that has divided courts across the country. The question is whether a homeowner’s insurance policy provides coverage when an insured is sued for wrongful death stemming from killing in self-defense. (ATLA Law News Digest – September 22, 2005)