Comments on: In Alaska, The Jury Was Leaning Against Lilly

By: Grieving

Grieving — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:16:00 +0000

This follows the Lilly playbook. How many death cases from Prozac or Zyprexa…..I should say murder cases ….have ended up in court versus an out of court settlement where the real details stay cloaked in anonymity.???

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:53:47 +0000

Again a one-sided story. Would have been good to let the whole trial run its course and to hear Lilly’s story as well as how many people were really hurt given such shoddy records.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:56:50 +0000

Fascinating report. Among other things, the fact that the spectre of preemption is playing into these settlements is certainly of note. According to reports, it was also part of why litigants’ lawyers were pushing people to accept the Vioxx settlement.

To that degree, the preemptors can already claim victories beyond individual cases.

By: Grieving

Grieving — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:14:14 +0000

I have heard that the state’s record keeping, regarding who was killed and when, and who got diabetes and when, was less than stellar and that this issue impacted the settlement. I must say it’s interesting that the state’s outside lawyers consider themselves to have been unfairly treated.

Well, t here is still hope. The federal case - DOJ for Eastern Pennsylvania and the Connecticut RICO case - both have potential to put lyin’ Lilly in prison.

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:49:02 +0000

Hi Nathan,

Yes, Lilly had begun to present its case. I posted an item that included info about Lilly’s witnesses. That was on March 22.

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/03/judge-fda-cant-police-safety-problems/

And like you, I only know what these jurors told the reporter from the Anchorage newspaper. Like it or not, that’s what they said.

As to the amount paid, I’m sure that will continue to be debated each way. One view is that Alaska got about $25 a head, based on the state’s population of 600,000 or so. Is that a good deal? Depends who you ask, I suppose. If that figure is used elsewhere perhaps - there are other lawsuits pending - perhaps the dollars start adding up. Again, there are going to be differing ideas about this.

Hope this helps
ed

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:44:53 +0000

I think Lilly concluded that a settlement would be far less costly than losing the case and setting a legal precedent for the other 9 states to draw upon in their own lawsuits. The agreement with the State of Alaska also ensures that Alaska won’t get less than other states do, so again, this was a calculated business move on Lilly’s part.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:42:58 +0000

One more thing: The fact that the state was willing to settle for such a small sum of money actually may speak much louder about the quality of the defence. If the state had such a rock-solid case, why settle for so little?

By: Jack2

Jack2 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:31:17 +0000

I agree with Nathan. We don’t know what would have happened if Lilly presented it’s full defense.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:27:22 +0000

How far did this case go? You state the 9 of the 12 jurors were leaning towards siding with the state. However, had the defense even presented it’s case? I know that they cross-examined a few prosecution witnesses — but that is very different than calling their own witnesses. Had the judge given the legal instructions to the jury? I was on a jury recently — my opinion swayed back and forth during the course of the trial. Moreover, the judge generally instructs jurors to try not to form opinions about the case, even in the privacy of their own mind, until both sides have presented and the judge has instructed the jury about laws that relate to the case. This doesn’t happen until both prosecution and defense have rested.