Pharmaceutical Drug Litigation Updates

Michigan law gives some lawsuit immunity to pharmaceutical companies

Quoted from http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/oakland_county/michigan-pharmaceutical-law-prevents-wife-from-suing-after-husbands-death-from-prescribed-drug

Michigan law gives some lawsuit immunity to pharmaceutical companies

Photographer: WXYZ

Copyright 2012 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Posted: 07/27/2012

• By: Kim Russell

 

Five years ago Sheila Muniz says her husband Eddie made a decision that would change her family forever. He asked a doctor for psoriasis medicine.

The doctor prescribed him Raptiva, a drug made by Genentech.

"His skin started to turn a bit of yellow, jaundiced. We went to our doctor, and then the emergency room. He never left," said Sheila Muniz.

Muniz says the drug shut down her husband's kidneys and liver.The previously healthy dad died at 38-years-old, weeks after starting the medication.

"There is no healing from this I will suffer from this until the day I die," said Sheila Muniz.

Eddie Muniz wasn't the only person who died after taking Raptiva. In 2009 the FDA sent out a statement announcing that the maker took the drug off the market because it was dangerous.

When Muniz tried to sue,several attorneys turned her away because she is from Michigan. Michigan law gives pharmaceutical companies immunity from lawsuits connected to FDA approved drugs.

[Article continues at original source]

Bills Seek to Change Rule on Generic Drug Label

Quoted from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/health/bills-seek-to-change-rule-on-generic-drug-label.html

Bills Seek to Change Rule on Generic Drug Labels

By KATIE THOMAS

Published: April 18, 2012

Democrats in the Senate and House introduced companion bills Wednesday that would permit generic drug companies to update warning information about the drugs they manufacture, a change that could allow patients to sue the companies for failing to warn about the risks of taking their drugs.

A Supreme Court decision last year, Pliva v. Mensing, barred patients from suing generic drug companies because the court ruled that the companies did not have control over what their labels said and therefore could not be sued for failing to alert patients about the drugs’ risks.

An earlier Supreme Court decision, by contrast, gave permission to patients who took brand-name drugs to sue the drug manufacturers. Since the decision last year, dozens of judges have thrown out cases filed by patients who claim they were harmed by generic drugs even though in many cases they suffered the same injuries as those who took the brand-name versions.

“The Mensing decision creates a troubling inconsistency in the law governing prescription drugs,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who sponsored the bill along with six other Democrats, said in a statement Wednesday.

“If a consumer takes the brand-name version of drug, she can sue the manufacturer for inadequate warnings. If the pharmacy happens to give her the generic version, she will not be able to seek compensation for her injuries,” he said.

[Article continues at original source]

NC Senate mulls immunity for drug companies

Quoted from http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/10923779/

NC Senate mulls immunity for drug companies

March 29, 2012

. RELATED

• Doctors, others decry idea of barring suits over faulty drugs
• Draft of pharmaceutical liability immunity bill

 

Raleigh, N.C. — A state Senate committee is considering a proposal that would block lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies over drugs that were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Drugmakers say they need protection from frivolous lawsuits, but doctors and others say the prospect of giving the companies immunity puts profits above people.

"We don't want any other family to have to suffer through something like this," Carolyn Prewitt, whose granddaughter died in 2006 from blood clots in her lungs, said Thursday..

Brittany Prewitt, 15, was taking the drug Yaz to clear up her acne and collapsed while playing catch with her father. The family is suing Bayer, claiming the company suppressed information about dangers associated with Yaz.

Under the proposal being considered by the Pharmaceutical Liability Subcommittee of the Senate, such suits would be barred in North Carolina. The only exception would be for a plaintiff who could prove a pharmaceutical company lied to the FDA to get a drug approved.

Critics of the bill say that's nearly impossible to do.

[Article continues at original source]

Group criticizes Brisson House bill

Quoted from http://bladenjournal.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Group+criticizes+Brisson+House+bill%20&id=17907944

Group criticizes Brisson House bill

 

by W. Curt Vincent
Editor The Bladen Journal

March 16, 2012

RALEIGH — The North Carolina Advocates for Justice recently released a television ad opposing State Rep. William Brisson’s sponsorship of a bill that would grant immunity to pharmaceutical corporations that sell defective and dangerous drugs.

The piece states: “Should politicians give pharmaceutical corporations immunity when they sell harmful drugs? Representative William Brisson says yes. He took political contributions from pharmaceutical corporations and voted to give those corporations immunity. Immunity from personal responsibility. That’s wrong. Everybody should be accountable for their actions.”

Brisson defended his sponsorship of the bill on Friday.

“I’m not familiar with this group, but if I sponsored (the bill), it’s a good bill,” Brisson said. “We do have a lot of problems with prescription drugs these days, both in the home and on the streets, but this bill is a good bill.”

Last year, House Bill 542 proposed special protections for drug corporations from being sued by those harmed and even killed by defective and dangerous drugs.

N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper has warned that pharma immunity “would restrict the tools available to prosecutors and could result in harm to patients and less safe drugs on the market.” In a statement delivered to the General Assembly in 2011, Cooper wrote: “We continue to be concerned that this law could be a loss for taxpayers and consumers. It’s difficult to understand why the legislature would make it harder for North Carolina to take action against drug companies that hurt patients or deceive the government, especially when other states don’t have these obstacles.”

According to liability lawyer Janet Ward Black, who testified recently in front of the state’s Tort Reform Committee, the change would cover everything from drugs to toys to cars.

“Almost every single product, whether it’s manufactured in North Carolina, another state or another country, is affected by this bill,” Black testified. “What it does, basically, is provide immunity — amnesty — for manufacturers of products, as long as some agency was regulating them.”

[Article continues at original source]