Articles Tagged with bellwether trial

Published on:

Plaintiff Sherri Booker Wins Jury Verdict Against C.R. Bard
Victims of C.R. Bard’s IVC filters got some great news two weeks ago. An Arizona jury in the first bellwether trial awarded a woman $3.6 million for injuries she suffered after Bard’s “G2” IVC filter broke into pieces in her inferior vena cava vein, requiring open heart surgery to remove the broken pieces.

The plaintiff, Sherri Booker, was implanted with Bard G2 IVC filter to prevent blood clots from reaching the heart and lungs. The problem was, the G2 moved inside her inferior vena cava (it is not supposed to move), then it broke apart. In 2014, she had to undergo open heart surgery. The surgeon was not able to retrieve all the broken pieces.

The Jury’s Verdict

Published on:

On November 16, 2017, yet another Texas jury Huge Verdict in Fourth DePuy Pinnacle Trialdelivered a huge verdict to the victims of the DePuy Pinnacle artificial hip. In this fourth bellwether trial, the jury awarded $247,000,000.00 to six plaintiffs and their spouses. According to news reports, after a two-month, hard-fought trial, the jury found that DePuy Orthopaedics and parent company Johnson & Johnson were liable to plaintiffs for the Pinnacle’s design and manufacturing defects. But the jury went further, concluding that the actions of the companies were fraudulent and deceptive, and that they had acted recklessly and maliciously in manufacturing, selling, and promoting the flawed products.

These last terms have special meaning in law: findings of fraud, deception, recklessness, and malice indicate that the companies went beyond mere negligence, that the defendants misbehaved intentionally or with a reckless disregard to the fact that their actions would harm innocent people. Because of these special findings, the plaintiffs were entitled to receive “punitive damages” from DePuy and J&J, which are money damages intended to punish defendants for especially bad behavior.

The jury awarded $90 million dollars in punitive damages to be paid by J&J, and $78 million in punitive damages to be paid by DePuy. That’s $168 million in total punitive damages. It is a lot of money.

Published on:

Fourth Depuy Pinnacle Hip Bellwether Trial in Dallas Texas
By all accounts, each of the three bellwether trials in the DePuy Pinnacle artificial hip MDL has been contentious. In the fourth bellwether trial, which should wrap up this week, the litigants have been in a fierce battle again. The most recent skirmish has centered on allegations by plaintiffs suggesting that lawyers for DePuy Orthopaedics may have been trying to influence the testimony of a witness for the plaintiffs.

I want to share with you the affidavit submitted by Dr. David Shein, a surgeon who treated three of the six plaintiffs involved in the current trial. Dr. Shein was once expected to be called as a fact witness in the case by the plaintiffs.

Affidavit of David Shein, M.D.

Published on:

Last Thursday a jury in Chicago found that AbbVie, Inc., the manufacturers of the testosterone product Androgel, must pay the plaintiff, Jeffrey Konrad, over $140,000,000.00 for injuries he suffered after using the company’s testosterone product. The jury found that AbbVie did not adequately test the testosterone roll-on gel product and misrepresented its safety to patients and doctors.

The Second Testosterone Bellwether Trial

Testosterone MDL in ChicagoMr. Konrad was in his late forties when he began using Androgel in 2010. He was prescribed testosterone to treat a decrease in his testosterone levels. Two months later he suffered a heart attack. He filed suit years later, alleging that AbbVie knew about the link between testosterone use and heart attacks but sold the product anyway, and without sufficient warnings. The jury did not find that Mr. Konrad proved the connection between his use of Androgel and his heart attack. Other factors, such as Mr. Konrad’s obesity, high blood pressure, and family history, could have caused his heart attack. Nevertheless, the jury found that AbbVie was liable for damages based on AbbVie’s negligence and misrepresentation.

Published on:

Some of my clients have been asking me what is going on with the fourth Depuy Pinnacle bellwether trial. Non-clients have also been calling to inquire about the status of the trial. Did it start this week? Was it postponed? What is the deal with Depuy and Johnson & Johnson trying to stop the trial? Let’s take a quick look:

Fourth Bellwether Trial Underway 

Depuy Pinnacle MDL in Texas
The short answer is yes, the fourth bellwether trial began on Monday (September 18, 2017). Six plaintiffs injured by the Depuy Pinnacle hip (and four spouses) are bringing their claims against defendants in Dallas, Texas before Judge Kinkeade. You can read about previous Pinnacle bellwether trials and their huge jury awards here and here.

Published on:

A few weeks ago I wrote about an Androgel testosterone case being tried in Illinois. We now have the verdict, and the result is, well, a mixed bag. Still, on balance, it must be viewed as a win for plaintiffs, and a major rebuke for companies like AbbVie, Inc. who aggressively market their prescription drugs for off-label uses. After all, at the end of trial the jury awarded the plaintiffs $150 million in punitive damages for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Androgel testosterone trial
Just to recap, Androgel is a roll-on testosterone product. Jesse Mitchell began taking Androgel in 2007 after doctors ran blood tests and found that Mitchell’s testosterone levels were quite low. In 2012, at the age of 49, Jesse Mitchell had a massive heart attack. From what I’ve read, the heart attack almost killed him.

Mitchell and his wife sued AbbVie in 2014, claiming the company marketed and sold Androgel without properly warning men about the increased risk for heart attacks. During the trial an expert for the Mitchells testified that in his opinion there was a connection between Mitchell’s 2012 heart attack and his extended use of Androgel.

Published on:

An important trial is taking place over testosterone in Illinois. As part of the testosterone prescription multidistrict litigation, manufacturer AbbVie, Inc. is defending itself against claims that Androgel, a roll-on testosterone product, caused the heart attack of Jesse Mitchell in 2012 after years of taking the prescription medication. Let’s take a look at that case:

Mitchell v. AbbVie Inc. (1:14-cv-09178) 

AbbVie's Androgel TestosteroneIn 2007 Jesse Mitchell visited his doctor complaining of a constellation of symptoms, including fatigue and depression. He was 44. The doctor ran tests, discovered low testosterone levels, and prescribed Androgel, an easy-to-use roll-on testosterone product manufactured and (aggressively) marketed by AbbVie, Inc. Mitchell applied the roll-on testosterone to his upper body for several years. In 2012, at the age of 49, he had a massive heart attack. From trial and media reports, the heart attack permanently damaged his heart and almost killed him.

Published on:

On June 12, 2017, a jury in New Orleans reached a verdict in favor of defendants in the second Xarelto bellwether trial. This verdict follows a defense verdict in the first bellwether trial. Let’s take a closer look.

The Second Xarelto Bellwether Trial  

Neoplastin PT Blood Test for Xarelto PatientsTo recap briefly, Xarelto (rivaroxaban) was first approved by the FDA for sale in 2011. As an anticoagulant, it was supposed to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), strokes, and other serious conditions. And it was easier to take than warfarin. In studies, however, Xarelto caused a higher rate of complications from internal bleeding; but unlike other anticoagulant drugs, there is no “antidote” for stopping internal bleeding in patients. People bleed and often can’t stop bleeding.

Published on:

Internal Bleeding on XareltoNext week the first bellwether trial begins in the Xarelto multidistrict litigation. Bellwether trials are important events in the life-cycle of MDLs. Both sides select several representative cases and submit those cases to the MDL judge, who then makes the final selection for a list of bellwether cases to try. From there, these cases are tried one after another. Along the way, the plaintiffs and defendants get a real sense of what juries think of the common issues raised in the MDL. This can lead to global settlements and ultimately to the resolution of hundreds or thousands of cases.

So as I said, the first Xarelto bellwether trial starts on Monday (April 24, 2017), unless the parties settle the case between now and then, which sometimes happens. If not, in a few weeks we will all get to see what the first jury thinks of the first Xarelto case.

I have written about Xarelto several times on this site, but to recap briefly, Xarelto (rivoroxaban) was supposed to be a game-changer as a blood thinning drug medication when it was first approved for sale in 2011. Blood thinning medications are important drugs to treat certain conditions in patients, as they can prevent pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and even strokes. These serious conditions often arise after surgery, when blood clots are more likely to occur. Xarelto was later approved to treat people with atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat).

Published on:

Depuy Pinnacle MDL TexasImagine going to sleep the night after making the decision to strip five hundred million dollars from six families. I imagine it would be unsettling. On Tuesday, Judge Ed Kinkeade, a federal judge in Texas overseeing the Depuy Pinnacle MDL, made the decision to cut $500,000,000.00 from a jury award presented to six families after a grueling ten-week trial last fall. You can read about the trial and the jury’s verdict here. In that post I wrote that the jury’s verdict was “staggering,” and it was. It may be more staggering that a judge, less than a month later, would wipe out half a billion dollars of the jury’s award.

“Single-Digit Multipliers”

On January 3, 2017, Judge Kinkeade issued his post-trial court order reducing the amount of punitive damages awarded to the six families, writing that “constitutional considerations limit the amount a plaintiff may recover in punitive damages.” The relevant portion of the Order states: