Comments on: Lilly To Pay $15M To Settle Alaska Zyprexa Suit

By: gloria

gloria — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:36:39 +0000

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!

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:39:26 +0000

PD - Look up, you’ll find California above you.

By: Philip Dawdy

Philip Dawdy — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:22:16 +0000

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.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:58:11 +0000

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.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:07:57 +0000

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.

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:28:46 +0000

Justice,

Did the injured recieve justice,.. no
Will Taxpayers be reimbursed,… no
No justice here..

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:21:11 +0000

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.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:06:29 +0000

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).

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:19:20 +0000

Id like to know what the Jurors thought. Hopefully the New York Times will ask..

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:32:52 +0000

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