Products Liability

June 18, 2009

New Massachusetts Opinion on Duty and Foreseeability

A hospital did not breach a duty of care as a matter of law to a police officer who suffered injuries while responding to a traffic accident allegedly caused by a just-released colonoscopy patient, Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled, affirming the trial court below.

The police officer responded to an emergency report of a pedestrian-automobile accident. On his way to the scene of the reported accident, another car hit the Plaintiff’s police car, causing what were apparently serious injuries. The pedestrian involved in the accident to which the Plaintiff was responding had earlier that day undergone sedation after a colonoscopy at Brockton Hospital. Plaintiff’s theory was had the hospital provided an escort for the patient/pedestrian, he would not have had to respond and the accident would not have occurred.

Specifically, Plaintiff argued that a duty of care existed under two theories to back door the foreseeability problem: (1) a “special relationship” the hospital had with the patient and with Plaintiff, (2) a voluntary assumption of a duty of care by the hospital to protect third parties from harm caused by “impaired” patients.

The case generated some attention. Amicus briefs filed by the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys to support Leavitt, and by the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association and the Professional Liability Foundation, Ltd., to support the hospital.

The Massachusetts high court found that both theories were no distinctions from the duty and foreseeability problem in finding that a hospital owes a duty of care to a non-patient third party to prevent a sedated patient from causing injury after the patient leaves the hospital.

Whether negligence extends to “an innocent third-party bystander” was recently decided in Maryland in Gourdine v. Crews. In that case, the family of a man killed in an auto accident sued Eli Lily claiming that his death was caused by a diabetic who blacked out while under treatment with two insulin medications. Continue reading

June 1, 2009

Denture Cream Lawsuits: An Overview of the Problem

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Zinc is common enough—it is even a dietary requirement. Humans should typically ingest between eight and eleven milligrams per day (often through red meat, nuts, and grains). However, lawsuits alleging zinc toxicity of denture creams are showcasing how too much of a good thing can be harmful. A study in Neurology reports that some patients who used denture cream received exposure to at least 330 milligrams of zinc daily—far more than the maximum daily allowance of 40 milligrams. This and other studies form the basis for many of the existing denture cream lawsuits.

There are approximately eleven denture cream lawsuits filed against Glaxo Smith Kline and Proctor and Gamble for their denture cream products—Poligrip and Fixodent. The denture cream lawyers allege that the denture cream manufacturers failed to appropriately warn consumers about the risks of zinc toxicity. One defense is predictable—the plaintiffs did not use the product under the instructions. However, that defense lawyers’ common argument – blame the victim – ignores the fact that much of the denture-wearing population (34 million Americans) have somewhat ill-fitting dentures. The only way to keep them in place is a generous application of denture cream. This is common knowledge. They never warned those people of the dangers of using denture cream beyond the instructions. From a consumer standpoint, a product that goes in your mouth must be safe to use. Who among us would think of a problem like zinc toxicity from denture cream?

So, here’s the science: zinc in denture cream is absorbed through the gums. High levels of zinc inhibit copper absorption, which can cause a copper deficiency and anemia (weakness). It can also reduce the function of the immune system. The more serious effects include paralysis and nerve damage. Symptoms can also include numbness or tingling, and lack of balance. One plaintiff claiming injuries from denture cream, a man from east Texas, can barely walk, and only with support.

May 5, 2009

Medicare Liens

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

We can hold hands and agree with the Drug and Device Law Blog on few things related to drug and medical device litigation but this is one: we hate Medicare liens and the government is making life even more difficult for parties on both sides of the v. As usual, they have a very complete post laying out this issue, focused on the defense lawyers’ perspective but much of it applies to plaintiffs’ lawyers.

May 5, 2009

Hydroxycut Recall

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The FDA has warned users of weight loss drug Hydroxycut to stop taking the popular weight-loss product because of risk of severe liver damage. The Hydroxycut recall focuses us all for the zillionth time on FDA’s inability to sufficiently police so much as a high school prom. But they never do anything about it.

The FDA is officially in the “Britney Spears Zone” for just about everyone. If they accidentally approved heroin capsules tomorrow, the New York Times and the Washington Post’s editorial sections would light up for a week. Then it would be back to business as usual and nothing would change.

May 1, 2009

Botox Black Box Warning

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The FDA announced that it will now require Botox and its progeny to provide a black-box warning. The FDA said the labeling is necessary to warn doctors and patients that Botox has potentially fatal complications, including problems with swallowing or breathing. The FDA has identified at least 225 reports of medical problems among patients treated with Botox and similar drugs.

If there was a stock available in 2004 called “The FDA Will Eventually Require Black Box Warnings for Botox But It Will Take Awhile”, I would have bought a ton. Unbelievably predictable.

March 4, 2009

Wyeth v. Levine!

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Wyeth v. Levine!!!! Plaintiffs’ lawyers have seen drug (and medical device) injury victims take punch after punch. But in a huge win for patient safety, the Supreme Court upheld in a 6-3 ruling today that in a Vermont woman’s verdict against Wyeth for injuries she suffered after taking one of the drug maker’s medicines. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said FDA oversight of drug labeling doesn’t prevent the filing of state tort claims.

It is a little pathetic that this is a huge win. Gee, the law for the last 90 years will not be completely uprooted. Yippy! But the Drug and Device Law Blog predicted victory and those guys have been on the winning side of most everything lately. (A guest Drug and Device Law blogger also broke down the justices individually and predicted victory but I cannot find the post to link to it.) So I’ll admit I was more than a little scared. Now, I’m thrilled that even this conservative Supreme Court found decisively in favor of the Plaintiff.

The one downside: a loss may have mobilized Congress to act. This win in Wyeth v. Levine could ironically slow progress on a bill to overturn Medtronic v. Riegel.

September 8, 2008

Average Wrongful Death Verdicts for Females: Age Is More Than a Number

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Interesting data from Jury Verdict Research on the median and average values of wrongful death cases where the decedent is female. The overall average compensatory award for wrongful death of an adult female over the last eight years in the United States is $2,990,032 ($1,102,976 is the median).

Age is a big variable when looking at median and average female wrongful death values. The average wrongful death verdict for a female between 18 and 24 is 2,990,032 ($1,102,976 median). For females between 30 and 39, women who are far more likely to have left behind children, the median wrongful death verdict escalates to $5,605,127 ($2,500,000 median). For women over 80, the average wrongful death verdict plummets to $1,314,241 (322,920 median).

I always find it maddening when insurance companies discount the value of human life in wrongful death cases because of the age of the decedent. If you are eighty years old and you are killed, those last 10 years of seeing your kids as adults, your grandchildren coming of age and everything else that comes with it are valuable years. But these numbers, regrettably, show that there is some logic to their thinking for how juries value wrongful death cases.

September 3, 2008

Plaintiffs’ Lawyer Are Committing Fraud and Defense Lawyers are Powerless to Stop It

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Mass Torts Blog, another defense lawyer blog brought to you by our friends at Dechert, posts on Labor Day about medical screening in mass tort cases. The allegations are basically that plaintiffs’ product liability lawyers are committing fraud when screening clients. Read the post for yourself and tell me that it is not a fair summary of what the post alleges.

It would be nice to have a more moderated voice coming from Dechert, a fantastic international law firm, as opposed to the defense lawyer version of Ann Coulter. But if what the Mass Tort Blog is saying is correct – that many plaintiffs who accepted settlements in the asbestos, silica, fen-phen, silicone breast implant, and welding fume litigations were fraudulent, manufactured claims – where were the defense lawyers to protect the defendants from this fraud?

Obviously, it was easy to make this determination, as Cardozo Law School Professor Lester Brickman had done in his study, which was relied upon in the Mass Torts Blog post. Were defense medical examinations a condition of settlement? Did they just blindly trust the plaintiffs’ lawyers? If this really is the case, shouldn’t we infer that all the defense lawyers who defended these cases committed legal malpractice?

August 25, 2008

Should Companies Be Required to Disclosure Expected Litigation Obligations in Product Cases?

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial with an anti products liability lawyer spin. No surprise. But what is surprising is that I agree with it.

Considering Enron and other business collapses that left stockholders holding the bag with no actual picture of the company’s financial condition, the Financial Accounting Standards Board wants to tighten standards. One requirement would make companies account for the potential cost of ongoing litigation not just regarding attorneys’ fees but regarding the actual value of the claims. The Wall Street Journal editorial says product liability lawyers will use the information to extort settlements and influence jury verdicts.

I’m not worried about either of those outcomes no matter how many times the editorial uses the phrase “extort settlements.” But I think there is a risk of forcing a defendant to publicly estimate settlement and verdict values because I think it tips off product liability lawyers and creates a floor for the value of any mass tort claim. I also think the editorial is correct, that predicting the trajectory of long and complex litigation is inherently unscientific. Mass tort cases are like the stock market in that their values are always changing. A good trial outcome or even a good expert deposition in an MDL can increase or decrease the value of a case. I’ve been involved with mass torts from both sides and believe knowledge of the true value is rarely known even to the insiders until the advanced stages of the settlement process.

August 14, 2008

Wyeth v. Levine – August

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Wall Street Journal has a good article online about the preemption battle that is being waged the FDA’s bureaucrats in the courts and in Congress.

The last line of the article says that “Some drug companies are telling plaintiffs’ lawyers that if they settle their cases now, they won’t pay as much to the plaintiffs as they would have six months ago, before the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the Wyeth case. A lawyer negotiating a settlement with one drug maker said company executives told him it wants the ‘Wyeth discount.'”

I don’t think many cases will settle for a “Wyeth discount” because both sides seem to think they will win. I cannot imagine how the court could find that there is a conflict between state and federal law in drug cases because I think federal labeling requirements create a floor for state tort claims, not a ceiling.