Legal Marketing News

Pennsylvania Superior Court Remands Risperdal Verdict to Lower Court to consider New Trial on Punitive Damages

pic2The third Risperdal case to go to trial has been remanded to the trial court to consider whether there should be a new trial.  At question is whether to apply punitive damages to the verdict.  The case, Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals originally rendered a $1.75 million verdict.  The amount was later reduced to $680,000 by the trial court after Janssen moved for a modification of the verdict.  The modification of the damages was granted when the trial court applied Maryland’s cap on noneconomic damages.

 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the trial court’s reduction of the verdict but sent the case back to the trial court to consider punitive damages.  In a previous case, the court had decided that Risperdal plaintiffs should be able to seek and recover punitive damages.  The trial court must now decide whether to apply the substantive law or New Jersey or Maryland.  New Jersey law strictly prohibits recovery of punitive damages in products liability cases.  Maryland law, however, allows for a plaintiff to recover punitive damages or those damages designed to punish the defendant’s conduct.

 

History of Risperdal Cases

In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Risperdal to treat schizophrenia in adults.  In June 2006, a study linked use of the drug with an increased likelihood of male breast growth, a condition known as gynecomastia.  Despite this study, the FDA approved the drug for treatment of schizophrenia in boys between the ages of 13 and 17 years old.  The drug was also approved to treat bipolar disorder in children between the ages of 10 and 17.  By September of 2012, over 400 lawsuits are filed against manufacturers of Risperdal.  At least 130 of these cases involve plaintiffs who have suffered from gynecomastia.  Today there are over 5500 Risperdal lawsuits pending in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

 

In the matter of Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals the jury awarded the plaintiff $2.5 million after testimony that 21-year-old Austin Pledger had developed 46DD breasts as a result of taking Risperdal at the age of 12.  The jury found that Janssen Pharmaceuticals was negligent and failed to provide adequate warnings to Pledger’s physician about the risk of gynecomastia.

 

In the matter of Yount v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the jury awarded a $76.6 million judgment. The jury found that Johnson and Johnson subsidiary Janssen did “intentionally falsify, destroy or conceal records containing material evidence in the case.” Other plaintiffs have received jury awards from $500,000 to $1 million. Johnson and Johnson have agreed to confidential settlements in some other cases.

 

Risperdal litigation is still ongoing.  Thousands of people have been affected by this drug and others.  Amicus Media Group is dedicated to bringing you the latest information on Risperdal lawsuits, mass torts, class action lawsuits and products liability litigation.  We provide comprehensive legal marketing services for attorneys practicing in these fields.  Contact us today for more information.

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

Devastating Wildfires Spur Legislative Action

pic1
Why insurance can be your adversary after a natural disaster

The news was plagued with images of Hell on Earth as fires ripped through Northern and Southern California.  The fires were relentless, leaving smoking chimneys as the only remnants of multi-million dollar homes.  The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection reportsThe devastation is utterly unfathomable.  Many wildfire victims had only minutes to evacuate their homes losing everything but the clothes on their back and few mementos they could grab before leaving.  As the dust begins to settle for those greatest affected by this destruction, the reality hits that those who are supposed to make you whole again may not have your best interest in mind.

 

California Lawmakers take Action

Eight bills have been submitted to California legislators regarding insurance companies’ relationship with victims.  Legislators were flooded with phone calls from citizens who were being inundated with misinformation and the inability to recover money to rebuild their homes.  Insurance adjusters told many that they did not have enough insurance to cover rebuilding.  Some were given false information about their rights after a total loss of their residence.  Complaints about out-of-state adjusters not knowing California law filled the phone lines.  Many of the bills focus on requiring insurance companies to cover full replacement costs and would make it difficult for insurers to cancel policies or reduce coverage in areas at highest risk for wildfires.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times follows several wildfire victims who have lost everything and are now in battles with their insurance companies to get recovery.  The insurance companies have become their adversary, giving out false information about their coverage including their rights to recovery.  According to a lawsuit filed by the victims, adjusters flooded in from out-of-state, “most failed to register, worked unsupervised and did not know California law.”

 

Adjusters put on Notice

Complaints from survivors prompted California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones to issue a formal notice.  In the statement, Jones stated “all claims adjusters assigned to wildfire claims, including those not licensed in California, are properly trained on the California Unfair Practices Act, Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations and all laws relating to property and casualty insurance claims handling.

The Commissioner pointed out that many survivors of the wildfires were told blatantly false statements, including:

  • Incorrect time frames – survivors were told that they had only 6 -12 months to collect full replacement cost to rebuild when California law requires that they are given at least 24 months in a state of emergency.
  • Incorrect rebuilding location recovery – policyholders were told that they would be unable to receive full replacement benefits if they did not rebuild in the same location. California law allows for a survivor to rebuild in a new location or choose a home that is already built.
  • Incorrect living expense coverage – claimants were informed that their living expense would only be allocated for 12 months when California law allows up to 24 months after a state of emergency.

 

How Attorneys Can Help

Given the frustrating state of affairs and the slow legislative process, the best advice for anyone affected by a natural disaster is to contact an attorney.  The interests of a policyholder and their insurance company are naturally at odds.  The conflict comes down to financial interests.  The more that the insurance company has to pay out, the less they make in profits.  An attorney can help you understand your rights.  They can help you negotiate your claim and fight for what you deserve.  Unfortunately, your adjuster may not be giving you accurate information.  The California Department of Insurance found that many adjusters did not know California law after a state of emergency is declared by an official.  Many were poorly trained and gave false information about policyholder benefits.  An attorney will fight to make you whole again and will not rest until you get the recovery that you deserve.

 

If you or a loved one has been affected by the recent wildfires contact Amicus Media Group immediately.  We work with attorneys from across California that can help you understand your rights and get you the recovery you deserve.

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

 

 

Opioid Crisis causes Purdue to stop marketing OxyContin to Prescribers

picThe US Department of Health and Human Services reports that more than 115 Americans die every day from opioid overdose.[1]  These opioids include OxyContin made by Purdue Pharmaceuticals.  In response to the growing crisis that is affecting nearly every sector of the population, Purdue announced that it will no longer be marketing to doctors.  The company has reduced its sales team and is restructuring their focus from direct, in-person marketing to physicians to helping to combat the crisis.

 

How Prescription Pain Pills became a leading cause of death in America

Opioid overdose is nothing new.  Opioids include prescription painkillers such as OxyContin and Hydrocodone, but also include opiates such as morphine and heroin.  Overdose from opiates has happened throughout time, but the huge increase over the last two decades can be directly related to the increase in sales of prescription pain killers.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that 40% of all opioid overdoses were due to prescription opioids.  The overall number of deaths from opioid overdoses increased five times since 1999.[2] Doctors were told that the prescription pain killers being given to patients were not addictive.  Aggressive, direct-marketing to doctors by pharma giants Purdue and others, led to a large increase in prescriptions and, in turn, a large increase in the number of patients who became addicted to these substances.

Documents from cases settled regarding the misleading information distributed by sales representatives for the pain killers indicates that employees were told to minimize the addictive quality of the drugs.  Major sales tactics began almost immediately after the US Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in 1996.  Sales of the drugs quickly drew into the billions for pharmaceutical giants manufacturing the drugs.

 

Future Problems for Prescription Pain Killers

The opioid epidemic has affected millions of people all across the United States.  It has captured national headlines and gotten the attention of local representatives as well as politicians across the nation.  Pressure is mounting against pain killer manufacturers that misled doctors and consumers about the addictive quality of the drugs and presented information that was not backed by scientific data.  Purdue has already paid out millions.  In 2007, the company entered a guilty plea for “misbranding” the drug.  The company took an uncompromising approach to selling OxyContin directly to physicians claiming that the time-release feature of the drug would prevent misuse of the drug and reduced the potential for addiction.  [3]

Government agencies, consumers and others have begun filing lawsuits against opioid manufacturers.  A federal judge overseeing more than 200 lawsuits regarding the epidemic urged the focus to be to “dramatically reduce the number of opioids that are being disseminated, manufactured and distributed.” [4]  Purdue in a complete reversal has agreed to join these efforts by stopping the promotion of OxyContin to doctors and find ways to fight misuse and overdosing.

Are you an attorney interested in representing individuals afflicted by the opioid crisis?  Now is the time to get involved.  Opioid litigation is heating up and too many individuals have suffered at the hand of drug manufacturers and distributors.  Amicus Media Group can help you acquire cases with comprehensive media campaigns.  We work with digital marketing campaigns, TV and radio ads to help you get the cases you deserve.  Contact us for more information today.

 

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/images/data/OpioidDeathsByTypeUS.PNG

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/index.html

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html

[4] https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2018/01/26/opioid-epidemic-litigation-dan-polster/1014046001/