Case Notes

Philadelphia Jury Awards $9.45 Million in Damages over Prempro Drug

Another Philadelphia jury has decided that drugmaker Wyeth should be punished with punitive damages for the warnings provided to a plaintiff and her doctor over the risk of breast cancer from Wyeth's hormonal drug Prempro.

The jury awarded $6 million in punitive damages and $3.45 million in compensatory damages on Feb. 22 in Singleton v. Wyeth. According to plaintiffs' counsel Zoe Littlepage of Littlepage Booth in Houston, this case is the first in the country involving a plaintiff diagnosed with breast cancer well after the July 2002 release of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a randomized, controlled trial of the risks and benefits of hormone replacement. The WHI received national notoriety because the study was discontinued early due to its finding that HRT correlated to an increased risk of invasive breast cancer and other health problems.

Littlepage said the jury's verdict was significant because plaintiff Audrey Singleton was prescribed Prempro during a period in which the label had changed following the WHI, and the jury verdict showed the jury found that Wyeth failed to react appropriately to the WHI.

The verdict in Singleton has continued the run of jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in Philadelphia hormone replacement therapy cases. There are 1,500 HRT mass tort cases pending in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. Last fall, a jury awarded $75 million in punitive damages and $3.7 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in Barton v. Wyeth. The total Barton award now stands at $10.6 million after a judicial remittitur. Also last fall, a jury awarded $28 million in punitive damages and $6 million in compensatory damages against Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn in Kendall v. Wyeth.

Three other Philadelphia verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in the HRT litigation were overturned by trial judges and now are on appeal. In a statement, Wyeth expressed disappointment in the verdict. Wyeth also said in its statement that it has won in 24 of 29 HRT cases set for trial through a combination of rulings by judges, verdicts by juries and dismissals by plaintiffs to avoid going to trial.

' Amaris Elliott-Engel, The
Legal Intelligencer

Trial Court Abused Its Discretion

A trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting a manufacturer from introducing evidence of a car seat's compliance with the safety standards. Malcolm v. Evenflo Co., 352 Mont. 325; 217 P.3d 514 (Mont. 2009). –

The parents sued the manufacturer of a baby's car seat after their four-month-old son suffered fatal brain injuries in a rollover car accident. A jury awarded the parents $6.697 million in compensatory damages. The jury awarded them $3.7 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the manufacturer's evidence that the car seat complied with safety standards for the purpose of compensatory damages. The safety standards addressed only minimum levels of performance in frontal impacts. The dynamic forces unleashed in a high-speed rollover collision were very different from those present in a frontal crash. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Mont. Code Ann. ' 27-1-719(2) by admitting evidence regarding the recall and test failures of an earlier car seat model. The trial court did, however, abuse its discretion when it did not allow the manufacturer to introduce evidence of the car seat's compliance with the safety standards for the purpose of considering the appropriateness of punitive damages under Mont. Code Ann.
' 27-1-221(2). The court affirmed the award of compensatory damages, but reversed the punitive damage award and remanded the case for a new hearing on the issue of punitive damages.

Philadelphia Jury Awards $9.45 Million in Damages over Prempro Drug

Another Philadelphia jury has decided that drugmaker Wyeth should be punished with punitive damages for the warnings provided to a plaintiff and her doctor over the risk of breast cancer from Wyeth's hormonal drug Prempro.

The jury awarded $6 million in punitive damages and $3.45 million in compensatory damages on Feb. 22 in Singleton v. Wyeth. According to plaintiffs' counsel Zoe Littlepage of Littlepage Booth in Houston, this case is the first in the country involving a plaintiff diagnosed with breast cancer well after the July 2002 release of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a randomized, controlled trial of the risks and benefits of hormone replacement. The WHI received national notoriety because the study was discontinued early due to its finding that HRT correlated to an increased risk of invasive breast cancer and other health problems.

Littlepage said the jury's verdict was significant because plaintiff Audrey Singleton was prescribed Prempro during a period in which the label had changed following the WHI, and the jury verdict showed the jury found that Wyeth failed to react appropriately to the WHI.

The verdict in Singleton has continued the run of jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in Philadelphia hormone replacement therapy cases. There are 1,500 HRT mass tort cases pending in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. Last fall, a jury awarded $75 million in punitive damages and $3.7 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in Barton v. Wyeth. The total Barton award now stands at $10.6 million after a judicial remittitur. Also last fall, a jury awarded $28 million in punitive damages and $6 million in compensatory damages against Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn in Kendall v. Wyeth.

Three other Philadelphia verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in the HRT litigation were overturned by trial judges and now are on appeal. In a statement, Wyeth expressed disappointment in the verdict. Wyeth also said in its statement that it has won in 24 of 29 HRT cases set for trial through a combination of rulings by judges, verdicts by juries and dismissals by plaintiffs to avoid going to trial.

' Amaris Elliott-Engel, The
Legal Intelligencer

Trial Court Abused Its Discretion

A trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting a manufacturer from introducing evidence of a car seat's compliance with the safety standards. Malcolm v. Evenflo Co. , 352 Mont. 325; 217 P.3d 514 (Mont. 2009). –

The parents sued the manufacturer of a baby's car seat after their four-month-old son suffered fatal brain injuries in a rollover car accident. A jury awarded the parents $6.697 million in compensatory damages. The jury awarded them $3.7 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the manufacturer's evidence that the car seat complied with safety standards for the purpose of compensatory damages. The safety standards addressed only minimum levels of performance in frontal impacts. The dynamic forces unleashed in a high-speed rollover collision were very different from those present in a frontal crash. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Mont. Code Ann. ' 27-1-719(2) by admitting evidence regarding the recall and test failures of an earlier car seat model. The trial court did, however, abuse its discretion when it did not allow the manufacturer to introduce evidence of the car seat's compliance with the safety standards for the purpose of considering the appropriateness of punitive damages under Mont. Code Ann.
' 27-1-221(2). The court affirmed the award of compensatory damages, but reversed the punitive damage award and remanded the case for a new hearing on the issue of punitive damages.