Pfizer’s Celebrex Expert: Look, Ma, No License!
10 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 29th, 2007 // 11:40 am
During a hearing last month in federal court in San Francisco, Pfizer trotted out an expert - a professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas - to help convince a judge that Celebrex wasn’t responsible for heart attacks. Pfizer went on to score a partial victory, because US District Court judge Charles Breyer decided the plaintiffs didn’t present scientifically reliable evidence about the most common Celebrex dose.
But what wasn’t clear at the time is that the Pfizer’s expert, Milton Packer, wasn’t actually licensed - everywhere he said he is licensed - when he gave his October testimony, according to court documents (look at page 20) and the Texas Medical Board web site (click on Public Verification and then type in his name). His temporary faculty license expired on July 16, and he applied for a practicing license last May 29, according to the the state board. In other words, licensing was pending at the time of his testimony, while his resume - which was submitted to the court - states he is, in fact, licensed in New York and Texas.
The plaintiffs attorneys jumped on this, and not only because they continue to fight Pfizer over a raft of lawsuits in federal court in San Francisco. Packer is also lined up as an expert in state court in New York, where the drugmaker is fighting the same battle over Celebrex lawsuits. The New York Superior Court judge, Shirley Kornreich, in fact, attended last month’s hearing in federal court.
“It is stunning that Dr. Packer holds himself out to the world, and the courts, as fully licensed in Texas when, at an earlier date, all he held was a temporary license,” according to a filed brief in state court in New York by the plaintiffs. “However, he failed to note this temporary status on his CV (resume) and instead, embellished it to a full license. Further, once the license expired and could not be renewed, Dr. Packer should have apprised the court. Certainly, re-submitting the same false CV at the time of written direct testimony, when the license was already expired, raises real concerns about the candor of this witness. What else has he embellished?”
Granted, Packer does have impressive credentials and may well be qualified to decide such matters as whether Celebrex causes heart attacks. But the sequence of events, at least as outlined in court documents, opens him up to this kind of questioning. So far, Packer has not responded to phone and e-mail messages. A Pfizer spokesman indicated yesterday a reply would be forthcoming; we will update you with any responses we receive. UPDATE: A Pfizer spokesman sends us this: “Dr. Packer is a licensed cardiologist and authority on the subjects of drug safety and clinical research.” (Presumably, Pfizer is referring to New York, but there’s no reference, as you can see, to the issues with Texas licensing).
Atlex
Ed,
Yes, there is an issue about his Texas license which should be cleared up. However, I think you are making an incorrect statement when you state “But what wasn’t clear at the time is that the Pfizer’s expert, Milton Packer, wasn’t actually licensed when he gave his October testimony…” As you later imply, he is licensed in NY.
Atlex
Ed Silverman
Thank you, Atlex. I have included an additional to phrase to clarify. Appreciate the editing catch.
Regards
ed at Pharmalot
Brian
What is the impact of being licensed in New York but not in Texas? What has your deep investigational journalistic investigation turned up? What qualifications does one need in Texas that aren’t included in a New York license. If it means paying an extra $20 does this matter to you or to patients? BTW, Is your web site licensed anywhere?
Laurie
Reciprocity between states no longer exists. You must be licensed in the state that you are going to work in, especially with the new criminal background check requirements. If a nurse attempts to work in a state without licensure in that state, she jeopardizes her license in the original state. The same standard applies to physicians.
If this doc hadn’t held himself out as a licensed Texas physician, it wouldn’t have been a problem. Application for a license is not a guarantee of licensure.
Semantics…possibly, but still misinformation in a court proceeding.
Ed Silverman
Hi Brian,
As a practical matter, it may not make a difference in the long run, so long as his New York license is valid and current. That’s for a judge to decide, I suppose.
But the issue is that Packer - and anyone, for that matter - should not be making claims of that sort when the reality is otherwise. People place themselves in jeopardy all the time when their resumes include credentials that prove to be incorrect or false.
By doing so, they undermine their own authority - why believe someone when the resume contains inaccuracies or exaggerations?
In this case, Pfizer wants a court to believe its expert when the expert doesn’t have his ducks in a row on his own resume.
By the way, I never claimed this was a ‘deep journalistic investigation.’ I read some court documents. That’s one of the things I do.
And no, Pharmalot isn’t licensed anywhere. Journalists aren’t required to be licensed, which I’m sure you already know. I suppose you’re going to ask about qualifications. I’m happy to chat about that, but it’s really a different discussion.
Cheers
ed at Pharmalot
Brian
My take on your accusations was that he had lost his license for cause rather than it’s term may have expired. You may want people to think his license was pulled and that he is not qualified to practice. Better be careful if that’s your intent.
Laurie
“My take on your accusations was that he had lost his license for cause rather than it’s term may have expired.”
That is not what was said in the post. My take on the article is that the doctor represented himself as licensed in Texas, when he wasn’t. No one questioned cause, except for you.
Ed Silverman
Hi Brian,
I didn’t make any accusations. I wrote about only what was contained in court documents and a state web site. I stuck to what was there. I’ve no idea why Packer’s licensing wasn’t current or didn’t renew sooner, nor did I suggest any reason for this development. I also noted that he has impressive credentials and may well be qualified to determine whether Celebrex can cause heart attacks. I think you’re trying to read between lines and there’s no need - I’m happy to write what I think needs to be written.
Cheers again,
ed at Pharmalot
david egilman
Well was he practicing in Texas without a permit. If you hunt without a permit you get in trouble in Texas?
Ken Thomas, RN
In my view, and as an expert witness myself, you cannot portray yourself as licensed or expert in something you are not. His credibility as an expert witness telling the TRUTH is thwarted by his claim to be licensed in Texas. An attorney will have a jury doubting his integrity once that’s revealed. I don’t question his expertise to be an expert witness on the subject he is testifying to…but I do question his willingness to bend the truth. You have to be “squeeky clean” as an expert witness as to your credentials or you won’t be believed by a jury.