Lilly To Pay $15M To Settle Alaska Zyprexa Suit
17 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // March 26th, 2008 // 7:01 am
The settlement, which comes just after the drugmaker began staging its defense against charges of concealing side effects, doesn’t include any admission of wrongdoing. There’s also a stipulation that Alaska will be treated “as well as any other state” that resolves similar claims. At least 9 other states have filed similar lawsuits against Lilly and more are believed to be considering taking that step.
The deal was announced in a joint statement by Lilly and Alaska’s attorney general, Talis Colberg. Lilly’s general counsel Robert Armitage insisted the drugmaker had a “strong defense”, but that settling was in the best interests of all parties. Compared with Zyprexa sales of nearly $4.8 billion last year, the settlement is a bargain. Colberg called the settlement a “good result” for Alaska.
In its lawsuit, Alaska had accused Lilly of failing to properly warn the state and healthcare providers that Zyprexa could result in weight gain, high blood sugar and diabetes. The state charged that the Lilly’s action cost the Medicaid program at least $40 million and the trial began in a state court in Anchorage on March 3.
During the proceedings, Alaska presented evidence that cast Lilly in a poor light - the drugmaker toughened the label in Japan to warn docs not to give the antipsychotic to diabetics, a step not taken in the US. Then there was an internal memo from John Lechleiter, who is about to be elevated to ceo, who wrote oher Lilly execs and appeared to have encouraged off-label promotion.
The trial was closely watched by state and federal prosecutors investigating the drugmaker. That’s because the outcome - and even evidence - was expected to influence settlement talks under way with the US Attorney in Phildelphia and state attorneys general. Those talks reportedly involve a $1 billion, although it’s unclear how a $15 million settlement in one state will affect the negotiations. Already, Lillly has paid $1.2 billion to settle 30,000 lawsuits from people who claim that Zyprexa caused them to suffer diabetes or other diseases.
Laurie
“The agreement involves no admission of wrongdoing on Lilly’s part. ”
Once again, the patients don’t get justice. They live with the end result of their Zyprexa use.
Melody
It looks like Lilly made out like bandits . . . they cost the state of Alaska $40 million PLUS costs associated with prosecution. (How many other ‘harmed’ patients will eventually be revealed that further impact Medicaid–taxpayer–monies?) Yep! $15 millions must sound very good to Lilly.
Nathan
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that this was a civil trial. Civil trials usually don’t involve admissions of guilt or innocence. Only CRIMINAL trials do that….
Ed Silverman
Hi Nathan,
Lilly’s own statement says the settlement “involves no admission of wrongdoing on Lilly’s part.” The company inserted this language to fend off, as best as possible, further claims that may charge the drugmaker did commit wrongdoing. Standard stuff, actually.
Hope this helps,
ed
Nathan
Thanks Ed. However, I pose the same question: Was this a criminal trial or a civil trial? I’m pretty sure it was civil. Civil trials only need a majority of the jury (not a unanimous vote) and the burden of proof is only “preponderance of the evidence” — not “beyond reasonable doubt” as in a criminal trial.
I keep hearing about these lawsuits against pharma companies for antipsychotic drug adverse effects and bad marketing practices. Have any of the drug manufacturers been convicted in a CRIMINAL (not civil) case?
Paul
Once again, the blackmail by states and plaintiff lawyers continues.
Let’s stop approving and selling all these antipsychotic drugs and go back to electroshock therapy.
Lisa Van S
Wow, Now thats one heck of a discount. Im sure Lilly broke out the Bubbly.
Ed Silverman
Hi Nathan,
It was a civil trial and so the jury would have been asked to answer different questions. Since the case never went to the jury, I don’t know the questions that would have been posed, although I suppose we could take educated guesses.
In any event, I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the various lawsuits against drugmakers over antipsychotic marketing. As far as I recall, the lawsuits filed have all been civil cases. Someone please correct me if I’m overlooking something.
Of course, there are numerous whistleblower cases filed against drugmakers, and while these remain under seal, it’s possible one or more could lead to criminal charges.
Regards
ed
Lisa Van S
Id like to know what the Jurors thought. Hopefully the New York Times will ask..
Justice in Michigan
I believe the following is “roughly” true….
As Ed notes, the phrase about “admission of no wrongdoing” is neither redundant or automatic. It is, as Ed suggests, common - both for the sake of a company’s reputation and potential further litigation. Here, it was clearly part of the settlement deal, so Lilly did not view it as small potatoes.
Regarding jury votes, I don’t know all permutations, but the OJ trial is probably not a good model. As I recall, federal courts in civil suits require a unanimous jury verdict, thus civil is not simply majority. This came up often during the Vioxx litigation.
States can vary, but I think “majority” is rare in these kinds of suits (again, could be wrong). As I recall, New Jersey required something like 8-2 in its Vioxx trials.
It is true that criminal prosecution usually is more difficult (which is why we see it rarely in the drug arena). You generally have to prove fraudulent intent (felony fraud). In other cases - the Neurontin one discussed here recently - there were both criminal and civil penalties. Not an antipsychotic, although Warner-Lambert was promoting it for manic-depression (among many other things).
Justice in Michigan
Addendum - Nathan is right that civil trails involve “preponderance of evidence” as compared with “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But that does not necessarily translate into a “preponderance” (majority) of jurors. As noted, jury vote requirements vary.
There is rarely “admission of guilt” on defendant’s part in criminal cases either (except on TV).
The core issue is that civil suits are about compensation for those who believe they were injured, including financially injured. Criminal suits are about violations of statutes.
Lisa Van S
Justice,
Did the injured recieve justice,.. no
Will Taxpayers be reimbursed,… no
No justice here..
Lauren
The Connecticut RICO case will be a criminal case. Halleluyah.
The problem with the Alaska case was lack of data. Say a prayer that the other states are keeping thorough stats on who was killed, who got diabetes, etc. This is why treacherous Lilly got off with a tap to the wrist.
Justice in Michigan
Briefly back to the issue Nathan raised, I was surprised to “re-learn” that, in the OJ civil case, 9 of 12 jurors had to agree. In fact, it was unanimous. I don’t know the range across states re: vote requirements.
Also interested to recall that one court in which it is purely “majority rules” is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Philip Dawdy
for Nathan: yes, this was a civil trial and yes it’s preponderance of evidence, but each state has different requirements for how many jury members must find a defendant ‘liable’ for a verdict to be rendered against them. in california, i think it’s 10 jurors. not sure what alaksa’s standard is. as far as i know there have been no formal criminal charges filed against any of the antipsychotic makers, although it’s pretty clear to me that if BMS hadn’t settled with the feds as it did about a year ago then it would’ve been hit with criminal charges. connecticut’s recent lawsuit against lilly is, among other laws, filed under the RICO statute, which certainly carries the possibility of formal criminal charges.
Justice in Michigan
PD - Look up, you’ll find California above you.
gloria
Divine justice will take care of Gussack, Lehner lawyers for Eli Lilly and Fibich a lawyer for the State of Alaska.
See picture, page 4 of the Business Day Section of The New York Times 3.27.08, all smiling too close for confort…$2,381 x 6,300 victims = $15M…”is larger than it first seems?”
“The settlement was done exclusively by the attorney general without our input”…Who sold the State of Alaska?
It’s shameful, cynical, sickening?… Where is the compensation for the suffering victims?
They must be detoxified, placed in recovering zones and compensated for the ravages of the deadly neurotoxin… zyprexa.
Damaging the brains of millions of people…by design and compounding the cruelty with a desease, goes beyond wrongful denial and medical malpratice…it’s criminal!