Compulsive Gambler Wins Lawsuit Over Mirapex
312 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // July 31st, 2008 // 1:52 pm
A federal jury yesterday awarded $8.2 million to a plaintiff who claims that the Parkinson’s disease drug Mirapex caused him to gamble compulsively, according to Mealey’s Emerging Drugs & Devices. And the verdict came in the first bellwether trial in the Mirapex multidistrict litigation in the US District Court in Minneapolis. A second trial began yesterday, by the way.
Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim, which are also defendants, moved to separate the injury phase from the damage phase.
Gary Charbonneau says he was prescribed Mirapex in December 1997 to treat his Parkinson’s disease and stopped taking it in November 2005. He claims the drug caused him to become a compulsive gambler from March 2002 to February 2006, during which time he lost more than $260,000. And he aruged that Mirapex causes compulsive gambling and that the defendants knew of the side effect but did not conduct studies or warn doctors or patients. This is his lawsuit.
The drugmakers argued the FDA concluded after additional research that “available information does not constitute proof of a cause and effect relationship” between Mirapex and “intense impulse behavior.” And they maintained the four-year time difference between when Charbonneau started taking Mirapex and began gambling indicates “gambled as a matter of choice, not compulsion.”
Pfizer and Boehringer also insisted Charbonneau had risk factors for pathological gambling, including previous gambling, instances of significant winnings and easy access to gambling.
Paul G
Is this April Fools? No, I guess not, but it might as well be. Talk about personal accountability…where is it?
Unbelievable
I had a cup of Starbucks a couple of weeks ago and had a hard time falling asleep last night. That made me watch late night television and those infomercials. Bought too many things, you can say now I am a compulsive shopper.
theresa
i am so happy with this verdict i have suffered so much devistation taking mirapex since 2001 for r l s
nobody knows how the stress has affected us. Say what they may i never gambeled before mirapex. Married for 29 years the only time i gambled was during the 29 years was when we took a vacation to las vegas for 3 days.
since mirapex i cant seen to stop.
My whole day all i think about how soon i can go to the boats.and if i cant get out i gamble on line.
how can we all be wrong,all of a sudden hundreads of people all taking the same drug have developed
the same problem.Coincidence i dont think so!! thease billion dollor pharmacuital need to take responserbility for there neglergence
and stop reunion our lives we trust then to reserch there drugs so we are safe taking there products.
they get away with to much make there money thats all they care about.
Supremacy Claus
The verdict is deeply embarrassing to the civil justice system. It has no scientific validity, nor any logic, just based on the facts in the article.
But let’s assume, the verdict is absolutely correct, and we are in the damages phase.
The plaintiff lost a specific amount gambling. 1) Should any gambling winnings go to the defendant?; 2) Should the value of the benefit of the medication be deducted, and reimbursed to the defendant if exceeding the value of the lost? He had Parkinson’s disease. Say, it was bad enough to retire him. The medicine improved him, and allowed him to earn again, to enjoy activities, to have sex, to avoid placement in a nursing home, to go out as a tourist, to run about with family members, to be funny, to sleep better. Those benefits have value.
If the plaintiff gets to collect for his loss, but does not re-imburse the defendant for the benefit, the plaintiff has been unjustly enriched.
Laurie
Paul G….the company has this reaction listed prominently in the literature for Mirapex.You may feel it’s valid, but the manufacturer does. This information was added to the drug insert and widely reported in 2005.
http://bidocs.boehringer-ingelheim.com/BIWebAccess/ViewServlet.ser?docBase=renetnt&folderPath=/Prescribing+Information/PIs/Mirapex/Mirapex.pdf
“Impulse Control/Compulsive Behaviors
Cases of pathological gambling, hypersexuality, and compulsive eating(including binge eating)have been reported in patients treated with dopamine agonist therapy, including pramipexole therapy.
As described in the literature, such behaviors are generally reversible upon dose
reduction or treatment discontinuation.”
Lou
Is this latest news of an $8.2 million award true? I have not been able to find any other sources. I have called all the offices of law firm involved but all are on after-hours message service. IS THIS TRUE????
Paul G
Laurie,
Thanks. That is language identifying that cases have been reported in patients treated with this class of products, but as someone else said, the science is hard to understand and why gambling and not shopping Why gambling and not cleaning the toilet. Very difficult to discern.
Finally, if indeed that information is on the label, then the company disclosed the risk, therefore harder to prove it didn’t.
Finally as Claus indicated, what would the payments be? Compensation for gambling losses?
This is dangerous.
Ed Silverman
Hi Lou,
Yes, it comes to me from Mealey’s, as the attribution indicates. If anything changes or I learn of something additional, I will update accordingly, of course.
Regards
ed
Lou
Dear Paul,
Yes, there are those who have other compulsions. People have repainted their houses over and over again, refinish furniture non-stop, eating, shopping, porn, etc, etc, etc. The gambling cases are coming to the fore first because they are considered the most straightfoward in terms of calculating damages. That’s why this one case and two other bellweather cases were tried first as instructed by the judge … among the 420 others who are part of this multi-district litigation being heard in the Fed Court in Minnesota.
Lou
Dear Paul,
Presiding judge approved plaintiff’s pre-trial motion, with evidence presented, to allow claim for punitive damages.
daniel
Ministers, a doctor, two attorneys, bankers, and even a nun plus hundreds of other Parkinson’s patients endured years of hell because of Mirapex. Remember that Mirapex was on the market in 1997 and that the warning was not put on the medicine until 2005. Even with that warning, Boehringer Ingleheim continued to deny any causal link. Many, many lives were ruined–marriages failed, bankruptcies were declared, people committed suicide. Can you imagine suffering from a disease like PD and having a medicine prescribed for that illness unknownst to you causing such destructive behavior? Warning? There are hundreds of people who had no warning until their lives were ruined. At least now people will have the facts to decide for themselves if they want to take Mirapex and if they do they will now know what effect it can have on their lives. People have no choice about Parkinson’s, but they should have about a medicine that has the potential to ruin their lives!
Laurie
“Finally, if indeed that information is on the label, then the company disclosed the risk, therefore harder to prove it didn’t.”
” Remember that Mirapex was on the market in 1997 and that the warning was not put on the medicine until 2005. ”
There’s your answer, Paul. When you alter brain chemistry anything can happen.
Lou
And … a neurologist laughed out loud in one victim’s face in Summer 2006 when he asked if his new-found gambling compulsion might be linked to the drug.
The doctor laughed in my friend’s face at the very idea and then went on to ridicule him for gambling away every last penny in his life’s savings, retirement funds, his home, all his future healthcare and drug insurance coverage, while accummulating masses of new debt to gamble when everything else was gone.
The doctor went on to say that despite the warnings, there was nothing to it, that he and the hospital neurological unit he headed never had a patient with any such reaction.
He scoffed at the puported warnings and renewed my friend’s precription for Mirapex. Made my friend feel like a fool and his will to try another doctor.
And sure enough, when he sought a second doctor’s advice a year later, he was told the only option was brain surgery and so this doctor also wrote another sript for Mirapex and advised my friend to find other ways of controlling the gambling. He offered no help/advice towards that end.
And all this while he was still in the grips of the compulsion, sleep deprived, and hardly able to deal with the situation.
It took yet another consult, another year of gambling later, to find a doctor who would even agree to treat my friend without using Mirapex.
Not a pretty story, is it? Reasons why patients did not simply stop taking the drug aren’t so simple either.
How’d you like to go through that and be left with nothing to help you deal with a beast of a disease and find care for yourself in dark future it threatens.
Hard to argue that he was left in the dark and abandoned by the healthcare community somewhere along the way. His concern and active search for help and information fell on deaf ears.
Randy Simens
I prey this is true. Anyone that has suffered from the compulsivity problems induced by that “poison” (MIRAPEX). Might be able to get their life back. RS
Tracie Baruch
Those of you who are mocking these plaintiffs (VICTIMS) should be ashamed of yourselves. Before rushing to judgement and condemnation, how about conducting a little research? It’ll serve you well by decreasing your level of ignorance. I am a clinical and regulatory affairs specialist with 20+ years in the pharmaceutical industry. I know first hand about the potential for and common practice by big-pharma of manipulating pre-clinical and clinical data to demonstrate (skew) data in their favor. I’ve also been witness to the malicious practice of hiding and minimizing knowledge of adverse drug experiences.
My credentials being established, I’ve also read the first complaint to the US District Court of Minnesota, Civil No. 07-MD-1836, as amended Sept 2007. These are the 1st 15 plaintiffs in the Mirapex case. Putting all the legalese aside, the bottom line is that Pfizer and Boehringer purposely and maliciously hid pre-clinical, clinical, and post-marketing data from the FDA. This data unequivocally proves that the firms were well aware, even at the pre-clinical stage back in 1994), that Mirapex has the propensity to exacerbate obsessive/compulsive/pleasure-seeking behavior. This was documented by the firms’ investigators in both animal and human studies, not to mention data they received from consumers themselves via post-marketing reports of adverse drug events. READ the complaint, people! Review all of the literature citations! Then let’s revisit your ignorant judgemental comments.
Pfizer and Boehringer were malicious and greedy. Not to mention the fact that the firms are guilty of non-compliance with the statutes set forth in the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The victims of Mirapex adverse drug reactions are truly victims. They and their families have suffered greatly- both emotionally and financially. Plus, let’s remember that they are sick to begin with– they have Parkinson’s Disease. They deserve every penny they can get from their litigations. If big-pharma wants to play, they better be prepared to pay.
You nay-sayers are too quick to rush to judgement, and you’re ignorant to boot. Next time, try reading the facts. Do a little research. You might learn a thing or two.
Glad I’m smart.
Lou
God bless you, Tracy. I have now seen the court documents online with my own eyes. The $8.2 million award and judgement against the companies is true and virtually all of that money is for punitive damages.
Now, we also must not forget, as we watch the progress of the next two bellweather trials and of the 400+ remaining cases that are part of this multi-district litigation related to Mirapex, THINK ABOUT REQUIP TOO!
There are many people who suffered the same compulsions and dire consequences on Requip (another dopamine agonist like Mirapex). Nobody is taking on their cases yet. Gotta figure out how that gets kick started as well.
Jane Akre
Tracie-
Would love to talk to your further about your background for Injuryboard.com.
Please contact me at jakre@clarislaw.com
Ours is a consumer website that covers many areas people need to know about to avoid injury.
Thank you!
jocinda
I am so glad this verdict came down. gambling was totlly out of character for me, i starting taking mirapex in 2000 then gambling was like going to disneyland everyday. the more i went the more i lost till it nearly ruined my life and 36 year marriage. if any one of you had this happen to you, knowing that the drug company intentionally lied about the dopamine effects, you’d be just as glad at the outcome.and you can be sure that what we went through to prvoe our case was not pretty.not to mention the embarassment telling loved ones your a 55 year old grandma with a gambling addiction. i am now on methadone with not nearly the relief as what i had with the mirapex.i pray no one else has to ever go through this.
jocinda
p.s. the writer stating that the pharmacuticals published the warning in 2005 for patients, is incorrect. i have a copy from my pharmacy from august 2007 with no such warnings.
Bartlow Hemoth
‘jocinda’, YOU are incorrect. In 2005, Boehringer Ingelheim did update Mirapex’s label to include reports of ‘compulsive behavior’. All it took me was 30 seconds of searching on google. Go to google and type in ‘mirapex gambling 2005′ and a wealth of information will be provided to prove what ‘Tracie’ states above. I find it aggravating that some of you are so quick to cast judgement, yet you are too ignorant to do any research at all.
Quote from article :
” … Boehringer Ingelheim updated Mirapex’s label in 2005 to include reports of ‘compulsive behavior’ among Mirapex patients…”
Link: http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3430
All it takes is a few minutes for all you ignoramouses to do some research and find that everything ‘Tracie’ said above is completely true.
It’s unfortunate that the internet has made it too easy for all you fat lazy slobs to spew your ignorant and unfounded points of view. Next time, put the twinkies down and take at least 60 seconds to do some research before you speak from out of your butt.
Also, if the courts decision was so heavily in favor of the plaintiffs, don’t you think it was because of the tremendous amount of research the prosecution did to prove their points?
Sheesh, some of you should turn off your computer and go back to watching the Duke’s of Hazzard…
jocinda
you can do all the research you want, but in my files I have documents from my local pharmacy as well as express-scripts that do not in any way shape or form list compulsive disorders as a precaution. my advise is till you have walked in our shoes, you may want to reserve judgement. if your child were hit by a drunk driver and was permanently affected by the outcome would you be willing to walk away?
Laurie
Jocinda…What you experienced is common. The warning is on the drug insert that few patients get. There was no Medication Guide mandated for this reaction, so the only requirement was putting the warning in the drug insert, not on the information sheet from your pharmacy.
Barlow..take a breath….you’re attacking those that have expressed their support for this decision.
jr
I am so glad Tracie is so well informed. I was waiting until I completed all the comments to get really upset. I took Mirapex for 2 years and there is no way you can understand the devistation it causes. Sleepless nights, because you are either scared of what you are doing or trying to decide where your next gambling dollar is coming from. I am (or was) a well respected bank Vice President who has always conducted my business in a very responsible way. No credit, no overdrafts, no funny business. During Mirapex I opened every credit card (without my husband knowing) that I could I deceived everyone I could, anyway to get my next dollar to gamble. I walked the floor night after night worrying crying. That was the worst two years of my life and I lost everything we had and am in debt $200,000. plus. because of this drug. I’m not sure I would have believed it if I had not lived through it. My husband of 47 years is presicous. He has stood behind me through all of this. I know there are many who have lost their husbands and wives.
If you have not had to go through this DO NOT BE SO QUICK TO JUDGE, (IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU).
jocinda
thank you Laurie. this is all I will comment on the subject. to all those who have expressed their support, me and my family thank you.
Maxi
Lou, thank you for your info. Where can I view the actual court decision?
Tracie, your passion and commitment is evident.Thank you for your support. Having taken Mirapex for many years,I feel physically violated.I went from reading a book in a casino while my husband played,to the pack leader.People laughed when I first told them about a minor article that described the effects of the drug. It was like being possessed; sitting for hours at a machine;taking from Peter to pay Paul and never thinking of the consequences until reality set in. These companies screwed with my life and willfully hid the truth. The decision to take or not take Mirapex was mine;but it was cloaked in lies and insidious motivation. Who can we trust when greed is everywhere? Having Parkinsons since 1995 is a daily challenge;but having to bear the guilt of what I have done is sometimes unbearable.I pray for a grand slam decision;three trials that result in a major victory for all the plaintiffs.
karen
I was robbed by someone when I was not even looking. Everything, gone, I don’t understand how people who have not been effected by this terrible drug, have the nerve to get on here and judge us. YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO JUDGE, I will only be judged by GOD, don’t mess around with a job that you are not qualified for.
“people who live in glass houses should not play with rocks.”
I know that I will be able to hold my head up a little higher when the facts are out about the winners in ths cases. I might even have a smile on my face for all the no sayers in my family. (on the way to the bank that is)
Lou
Hello, Maxi. You can see the court documents online by registering with ‘PACER’. The PACER Service Center is the U.S. Federal Judiciary’s centralized registration, billing, and technical support center for electronic access to U.S. District, Bankruptcy, and Appellate court records. There is a charge of 8 cents for every page viewed.
To gain access, you must register online at the following URL, after which PACER will send you a login and password by mail. That means
that you won’t have immediate access after registering online. (At least as far as I know; I am a first time user myself.)
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/psco/cgi-bin/register.pl
karen
so Lou, can you tell us what this web sight says?
And does anyone know what will keep the drug company from filling bankrupt with all these cases and the first one is a good sign it is going to cost
Just wondering if I will get my hopes up and be let down again
Lou
Oops, my mistake! I just doubled checked and you can get almost instant activation of access if you provide credit card info when you register.
“Customers who provide a valid credit card or debit card number at the time of registration will receive access instructions shortly thereafter (usually in a matter of minutes). Customers who do not provide a card number at the time of registration will receive access instructions via U.S. mail.”
Please read PACERS User Policies. They seem to warn against sharing your login/password and the documents sourced there.
Better check with PACER. I know not.
Here are a few lines from PACER’s Policy:
“Access to Court iElectronic Records is supported by user fees. Any attempt to collect data from PACER in a manner which avoids billing
is strictly prohibited and may result in criminal prosecution or civil action. PACER privileges will be terminated if, in the judgment of judiciary personnel, they are being misused. Misuse includes, but is not limited to, using an automated process to repeatedly access those portions of the PACER application that do not assess a fee(i.e. calendar events report or case header information) for purposes
of collecting case information.”
Maxi
Lou….you’re the best. I followed your directions and now I have access to PACER. Undertsanding the whole system is a formibible task but what a resource. THANKS AGAIN.
Ed Silverman
To Maxi and others,
I have belatedly posted a direct link here to the Mirapex lawsuit. Apologies for not doing so sooner.
Regards
ed
Maxi
sorry..where is the link please
Ed Silverman
Hi Maxi,
Look at the bottom of the third graph, where the sentence ‘This is his lawsuit,’ is highlighted. Just click on that.
Cheers
ed
Belay
Great news!! I am convinced that the upcoming trials will have a favorable ruling.
Belay
Jocinda,
I think you have a point about the inserts from the pharmacys. Please email me at belayf682@gmail.com to discuss further
Thank you
Lou
Legal wrangling … check this out. Ouch!
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2008/07/plaintiffs-verd.html
Tracie Baruch
Tracie again. I’ve gotten some inquiries for more detailed information and here it is. First my disclaimer- I am not an attorney. I am a Clinical/Regulatory Affairs Specialist for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Thus, some of my interpretations of the 1st Mirapex complaint may not be completely correct. However, I do believe my understanding is pretty damn close. Below is a link to the first Mirapex complaint filed with the US District Court of Minnesota. It is Civil No. 07-MD-1836, as amended in September 2007. The reason they call it “amended” is because of the separation of compensatory versus punitive damages. That means that, while all of the 15 plaintiffs in this 1st trial were eligible for compensatory damages (money awarded to them due to injury, out of pocket expenses, medication, having to get a second job, etc.), they were not necessarily eligible for punitive damages (money paid to them for pain and suffering, and which represents the jury’s way of making a statement about the negligence and maliciousness by the defendant companies). Punitive damages, as decided by the Minnesota District Court, were based upon the home state of each plaintiff. That is the court’s way of making punitive damages fairly awarded. In other words, the court says that each plaintiff was “injured” in their home state, thus they should be awarded punitive compensation based upon the statutes of that home state.
Interestingly, each state in the US has their own laws about punitive damages. A state will fall into one of 3 possible categories: i) A state where punitive damages are not allowed at all. For example- Louisiana, Massachusetts; ii) A state where punitive damages are allowed, BUT, the plaintiff must prove Prima Facie first. This means that the plaintiff must first have a preliminary hearing showing that he/she can prove injury, or where the injury is plainly evident. In this case, once Prima Facie is proven, they are eligible to win punitive damages; and iii) A state where punitive damages are allowed, AND the plaintiff does NOT have to prove Prima Facie first. Some states have caps on punitive damages, others don’t.
This complaint is extremely important to anyone who is dubious about the EVIDENCE offered by the prosecution against the plaintiffs. Beginning on page 10 of the complaint, a summary of the history of Upjohn’s (now Pfizer) filing to the FDA is presented. This is what our resident nay-sayers should try to swallow. There are numerous citations, starting at the preclinical phase of investigation (in animal models, before it goes into humans) of compulsive behavior. These citations are from the preclinical investigators themselves (Boehringer’s investigators). One example from the initial IND filing: “…(Boehringer) stated that animals that had been treated with Mirapex exhibited stereotypic climbing and compulsive gnawing.” Continuing into the clinical trials submitted with the NDA filing, there are literally dozens of citations taken directly from the firms’ clinical reports of “increased libido”, “compulsive behavior”, “loss of ability to control compulsive behavior”, “anxiety due to gambling”, and “addicted to gambling”. The gambling citations are from 1998!!!!!!!
Peruse the evidence for yourselves folks, then feel your blood pressure rise.
So, any reasonable person will question how Pfizer/Boehringer can deny any knowledge of compulsive gambling? And how can they deny any causal link between the drug product and the adverse events?
I’m sorry if my rant is a bit disorganized, but the facts are right there in Complaint 07-MD-1836. Please check it out for yourselves. Here is the link:
http://thomsonrogers.com/files/Mirapex_Products_Liability_Class_Action_071128_Punitives_Mdl_order.pdf
Feel free to ask any questions if you have any. I love to talk pharmaceutical, and I really support the plaintiffs in this case.
Tracie
Bartlow Hemoth
Thank you Tracie for the excellent information.
In addition to the overwhelming factual data you have provided, I have to ask :
Where are the defendants ‘experts’ who should be rebutting all this information?
While Tracie and others are providing us with almost undeniable proof that Mirapex causes/caused compulsive behaviors (and knew about it); including uncontrollable gambling (even in people who NEVER gambled before); where are the expert witnesses for the defendant(s) who are supposed to be disputing everything?
On all the boards I have been on, the only people scoffing at the accusations (and the results of the first case) seem to be internet couch potatoes that have nothing better to do.
You would logically figure that if there was direct proof that could denounce the victims/plaintiffs claims, it would be posted everywhere; yet I find none.
Marie
I would like to direct my comment to “Paul G.”
Paul,
Speak not of which you know nothing about.
This drug has affected HUNDREDS of people this way. That’s why HUNDREDS of people have sued the drug manufacturers.
Next time you make fun of the plaintiffs, maybe you should count your blessings that you were not a victim to these money hungry drug manufacturers who knew all along that Mirapex had this side effect and yet intentionally failed to disclose it to the public.
Again: Speak not of which you know nothing about.
Billy
Tracie,
Thank you for your insight. Could you please email me at belayf682@gmail.com.
Ben Dover
Bravo Tracie,
Finally someone with the necessary intellect to represent those whose lives have been negatively
altered by pharmacutical companies that hide facts under the cloak of greed. Thousands of recipiants using Mirapex were literally destroyed by the side effects of the drug. Concealing the facts well known by these Phara companies it totally unforgivable. Concealing known facts regarding side effects that heightened compulsiveity is nothing but total negligance. Brave Tracie for your irrefutable evidence of denial of facts from the pharmacutical Companies.
Ben Dover
Tamara
No one should EVER take any drug of ANY KIND until they have proven that they have a minimum of two brain cells to rub together. Enough to spend some time actually learning about what they are about to put in their mouths. If John and Jane Q. Public could just remember the following things: 1) All drugs have side effects— ALL DRUGS. Is your problem really worth risking the chance you may suffer one of these devastating side effects? Really think about it before you tell your doctor you want the latest greatest thing advertised on TV. 2) Stop expecting there to be a magic pill to fix what ails you. There are precious few magical cures among the thousands and thousands of drugs on the market.
3) Drug companies exist to make money and they spend a lot of money on fancy commercials and ads to appeal to you. Don’t fall for it.
Philip
SUMMARY OF SIDE EFFECTS
CAUSED FROM MIRAPEX
Philip J. La Plante 6/5/08
12150 Vista De Cerros Dr.
Moreno Valley, CA. 92555
Hm# 951-242-7206
Cell# 951-543-8901
philiplaplante@hotmail.com
In January of 2000, I started to show tremors in both legs and left hand and rigidity in my
muscles and I had a hard time walking and standing for a long period of time. Being concerned about my condition, I went to Kaiser in Fontana, California, were I was seen by a Dr. David Rice a Neurologist. It was at this point that I was prescribed Mirapex to treat my symptoms.
In November of 2007, due to all of the pathological gambling, betrayal, lying, stealing and destruction to myself, my family, my wife and children and basically to everyone that I have ever known, I tried to take my own life (5150). The ultimate sin. I tried to stop all of this pain and agony to myself and my loved ones, I tried to take own life by overdose. I never thought for a minute that I could be in such a dark place like this that I would try to end my life. Some how before I had passed out, I had dialed 911 and asked for help and was taken to Redlands Community Hospital and put under a suicide watch and spent the next seven days trying to get back to reality and in the right frame of mind to function in my life once more.
Before all of this I was a very strong willed person, loving life at its fullest and very functional in life and financially stable.
In December of 2007 I went to a Gamblers Anonymous meeting and explained my situation, that I was compulsively gambling out of control for years and also talked about my condition with Parkinson’s Disease. After I was done talking, a member at the meeting that had been going to these meetings for several years mentioned that there was a another gentleman that was at a meeting a couple of years ago that also had Parkinson’s Disease and found out that the medication that he was on at the time caused him to compulsively gamble. It was from this point till now that I have been doing research on the side effects of Mirapex.
In February of 2008, I was still having problems with coping with all of this tragedy and turmoil that I finally broke down and suffered a nervous breakdown and was admitted into Loma Linda Behavior Medical Center for ten days. During this time, I was evaluated and put on medication that would help me cope with life. I knew that at this point I had given up and put my life in God’s hands, I had no were else to turn. It like I was in hell
The preliminary diagnosis was PD and was confirmed February 2008 with a live Dopa PET scan at UCLA. Dr. David Rice started to treat my symptoms with Mirapex. As time went on I suffered from numerous side effects caused from this medication like falling asleep while driving, loss of memory, shortness of breath, compulsive over eating, weight gain, 145lbs., insomnia, pathological gambling, swelling in my legs and feet, self-destruction, depression, anxiety, family, my career and etc
I want the manufacturer of this medication to be aware of the dangerous and life altering effects this medication has on myself and others before and after me who are suffering from the same or different negative and life altering effects. .
I have spent the past several years in a living nightmare. I had lost control of my life, my career and my marriage. I had destroyed everything that I had worked so hard to accomplish in my life.
My hope is that I can find an attorney who can help me.
Thank you.
Philip La Plante
To Tracie
Tracie,
I was diagnosed with Restless Leg Syndrome around 7 years ago. I am currently taking Mirapex and before that I took Requip. I developed a gambling problem around that same time. Could it be true that this medicine that I take everyday could be the cause of this monster that has ruined my entire life. OMG. Sorry I’m in shock right now. I have lost everything! My marriage of 21 years, my boys, my home. I lost everything that I Loved because I couldn’t stop gambling. I can’t stop. I’ve always wondered how someone who had no interest in gambling could all of the sudden become a compulsive gambler. I will be looking into this further and for an alternative medicine to take for RLS.
to tracie
to RLS believe it. You need to stop taking Mirapex. Your gambling will just go away. I was in this tairlspin for two years. Just suffer with your legs or drink tonic water with quine in it. My doctor told me about the tonic water and it does help.
Sandy Trahan
TO Tracie,
I am have RLS and took Mirapex from about a month after it was approved by the FDA until about a year and a half ago. I also am a plaintif in this lawsuit. I was elated at the outcome of the first trial and refuse to feel bad over the ignorance of some of these people.
I live in Texas and am ignorant of legal matters. I would like to know if there is a way to find out what my case #. I think it should be close to the 200 mark.Is there someplace that we can read the testimonies or about the proceedings of the day. I am a johnny come lately to this sight and have not read it all yet.Thanks a million for your very appreciated and professional input.
Sandy Trahan
Bartlow Hemoth
To SANDY TRAHAN,
Is this the case you are refering to “Trahan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al”?
If so, there’s 21 Docket entries. Latest one done on June 12, 2008 mentioning a “NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE/SUBSTITUTION for Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, LLC, Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia Corporation”
Your entire case is refered to as “CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:07-cv-03113-JMR-FLN”
And if you are signed up to PACER, you can read every docket/document here :
https://ecf.mnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?217487885954719-L_567_0-1
Hope that helps.
- Bartlow :)
PS - Each individiual case against Mirapex is listed here (you need to belong to PACER though):
https://ecf.mnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/AsccaseDisplay.pl?92448
Emily Eden
Tamara,
It is quite obvious to me that you are one of those poor souls lacking one of the two brain cells required to rub two together. Your apparent lack of knowledge in the pharmaceutical and medical professions is quite incredulous.
It is crystal clear that Pzifer/Boehringer intentionally conspired to conceal the devastating results of clinical trials showing the drugs effect on compulsivity.
Mirapex proved to cause dangerous and life threatening results. Systems such as: loss of memory, shortness of breath, compulsive over eating, swelling of legs/feet, insomnia, pathological gambling and increased sexual desires. As far as “learning what to put in your mouth”, is it not time to open yours and remove your foot?
Should you become a diabetic one day, perhaps you should not take insulin for fear of “side effects”
For a more accurate and informative entry, read comments above provided by Tracie.
tracie baruch
Bartlow H.-
Thanks for giving Sandy T. the critical information she was looking for. I kept meaning to search her case on PACER, but my job’s been crazy busy! (Big pharma, ya know! ;)
Sandy T.-
I know you will find Bartlow’s information a great source of help and reassurance. I know you and all the other victims in this case will prevail.
I simply cannot wait for the 2nd bellwether case to conclude, and that could be any day now. Another stunning defeat to the defendants, right on the heels of the Charbonneau victory, will really cement the fact that Boehringer and Pfizer have blatantly disregarded the Federal Statutes governing the development, marketing and post-marketing requirements for new drug products.
Emily E.-
Kudos to you for putting Ms. Tamara in her place. After reading her ignorant, mean-spirited and uninformed post, I wanted to rebut (again!) but, obviously one cannot provide enough scientific evidence to satisfy some people. I just didn’t have the energy to repeat my initial statements and links to the published evidence to someone who obviously doesn’t read anything intelligent in the first place. So thanks for your well-informed blog.
Sandy Trahan
To Bartlow and Emily
Thanks amillion times over for leading myself and others in the right direction in this legal information. It was very helpful and appreciated.
I joined Pacer last night. They said it would be the 24th of this month before I could have access to the web sight I can hardly wait to see my exact * of filing and day to day info. Do you all think the most of us will actually get a 6 or 7 figure dollar amount. This is hard for me to digest.
Thanks again,
Sandy T
tracie baruch
Sandy T.-
So happy you are getting the information you need. Like I’ve said before, I’m not a lawyer, rather, I’m a Regulatory Affairs Specialist in the pharmaceutical industry. So, I’ll give you my opinion from a pharmaceutical industry point of view, with a sprinkle of my pharma-legal experience chocked in for good measure.
Fist, we must define the 2 types of settlements that a plaintiff is eligible for. The first kind is called “Compensatory Damages”. In layman’s terms, this means monies awarded to a plaintiff by the court to compensate them for expenses incurred as a result of an injury caused by a product (in this case Mirapex). In the Mirapex case, Compensatory Damages might be awarded for such things as money lost due to compuslive gambling, money paid to doctors or psychiatrists while trying to find out what was wrong, money because the plaintiff or a family member had to go out and get another job, and any issues that could be identified as ‘pain and suffering’ etc.
Here is a quote from lexisONE/Mealey explaining the exact nature of the Compensatory Damages awarded to Gary and Cynthia Charbonneau in the first bellweather case:
“The jury awarded Gary Charbonneau $204,000 for gambling losses, $175,000 for pain and suffering and $15,300 for ‘opportunity costs’. Cynthia Charbonneau was awarded $85,000 for loss of consortium.”
Link to source:
http://www.lexisone.com/news/nlibrary/m080708m.html
The second kind of award is called “Punitive Damages”. In layman’s terms, this means monies awarded to a plaintiff by the court with the intent of making a public statement about the magnitude of the damage done by the defendant/s. In other words, punitive damages are awarded in a lawsuit to punish the defendant/s and make an example of them by showing what happens to individuals or companies when they conspire to do malicious, evil and/or fraudulent acts. In the Charbonneau case, the jury assessed punitive damages of approximately $3.9 million against each of the defendants ($3.9 million against Boehringer plus another $3.9 million against Pfizer/Pharmacia). This information is also covered in detail by the lexisOne/Mealy article, link above.
One really important point to know about Punitive Damages is that they are regulated by one’s State of residence (the state where the plaintiff lives). Without going into superfluous detail, this means that some states DO NOT allow anyone to be awarded Punitive Damages at all, while other states DO allow Punitive Damages (via prima facie laws or not). Punitive Damages are a huge bone of contention amongst states, attorneys, industry/defendants and plaintiffs. You’ll see this topic almost any day in the media in articles, editorials and blogs about tort reform.
Anyhow, Sandy T, according to the first complaint filed with the US District Court of Minnesota (the Charbonneau case), Complaint 07-MD-1836, Link: http://thomsonrogers.com/files/Mirapex_Products_Liability_Class_Action_071128_Punitives_Mdl_order.pdf
in the state of Texas, “a plaintiff is not required to make a preliminary showing to allege punitive damages”. This means that your state DOES allow punitive damages, and you do NOT have to have a prima facie decision first. Bottom line, Texas = good for Sandy!
Now that I’ve (hopefully) explained the basic difference between Compensatory and Punative Damages to the best of my knowledge, I’ll give you my OPINION on what could happen with the majority of the 400+ upcoming litigations.
Unfortunately, we only have the Charbonneau decision to look at for precedent, pending the outcome of the 2nd and 3rd bellweather cases. That being said, the Charonneau decision is a GOOD precedent for the next 399 cases.
Insofar as Compensatory Damages, these will be hard for Boehringer/Pfizer to dispute and I would think they’ll be paid out to plaintiffs. Punitive Damages are another matter altogether. If the next 2 of the remaining bellweather cases are like the 1st, the Punitive Damages will be huge. With this in mind, Boehringer/Pfizer will have three options:
(i) they could just pay every cent of punitive damages to each successful plaintiff. This option is not likely.
(ii) they can file an appeal to each or selected cases. This will hang both the plaintiffs and defendants up in court for heaven knows how long. During the time of an appeal, I believe that the defendants do not have to pay out any monies at all. [Someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong.] Appeal is a risk:benefit decision that the defendants’ attorneys will have to make, based upon many variables such as the outcome of the 1st three bellweather cases, taking into account the remaining 397 cases after that, court and legal costs, media relations, board of directors/stock issues, etc.
(iii) the defendants can pay Compensatory Damages to each plaintiff, and then propose a settlement on the Punitive Damages.
In my mostly-ignorant opinion, I’m going with option number iii just based on a practical evaluation of the risk:benefit ratio. Of course, that’s what it’s all about, folks, the do-ray-mee MONEY! The defendants need to seek out the least financially harmful way to settle the litigations. In my thinking and pharma experience, that is option iii.
As an example of option iii, let’s say that John Q. Public is awarded a sum total of $6 million in Compensatory and Punative Damages. A likely scenario is that the defendants’ attorneys will say, “Listen John Q., you can settle with us now for a payment of $2 million, or we are going to appeal your decision. That, Mr. John Q., is the best we can do, or else we’ll all be hung up in court in an appeal during which you’ll have no award for an indeterminate amount of time.” Then John Q. and his attorneys will make their decision as to whether or not to take a settlement and for how much.
Based upon all the variables, I would think that option iii (a settlement) is the most likely and practical for all parties- PROVIDED the settlements are fair to the plaintiffs/victims.
Sandy, I hope this information proves helpful. Like I said, this is my opinion and I’m not an attorney. I welcome anyone to correct any of my interpretations of the law or pending cases, or provide additional insight as to what the final outcomes could be in these cases.
Just wanted you to know
As hopeful as the verdict of the Charbonneau case is, most people–even jurors–do not realize that large punitive awards areoften grounds for appeal; moreover, many states tax the punitive awards up to 75%. This high tax rate plus attorney’s fees and federal tax can leave the plantiff actually owing money. Compensatory damages, on the other hand, generally are not taxable. When the public sees these large punitive awards, they think the plalntiff is getting rich. Not true! More often than not, these awards can leave the plantiff owing money. So even as headline grabbings as a large punitive award is, larger compensatory damages are better for the plantiff.
Interesting Question
A question for Tracie. There are two states that do not allow collection of punitive damages.What do you think the plantiffs in these states will recieve if this law suit is won compared to the others.If all they can recieve is compensatory damages they will evidently fall short of anything near what the other plantiffs will recieve.
Emily Eden To: Supremacy Claus
TO: SUPREMACY CLAUS,
It has been proven that every village has its village idiot. What village do you reside? so that in my travels i may avoid that particular village in the event that Idiotism may be contagious.
Reimburse the defandants?. it is now apparent that said defendants intentionally conspired to conceal the dangerous side effects of Mirapex fount in their clinical testing. In thier quest for financial gain and independance, Pfizer/Boehringer bilked both the insurance companies and patients out of millions of dollars. The blatent withholding of test results are now quite transparant.
Reimburse the defandants? Is the air in which the village you reside in polluted with impenitent dust? For 8 years the defendants succsessfully deceived thousands of patients that had to endure Parkinsons and the dangerous side effects of Mirapex.
Reimburse the defandants? Additionally Mirapex is not to be ingested for heightening of patients pathological sexual appitite. Patients with Parkinsons unfortunately, will never “be able to run around with “family members”.
The facts are that parkinsons patients do not happen to “sleep better” they tend to only sleep around 5-6 hours at best.
What village is it that you live in again?
Reimburse the defandants? “deeply embarrassing the Civil Justice System” say thee. The only embarrassing thing here is your perception of the facts presented. Your “Dependants” have already been reimbursed to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by willfully withholding Evidence. God must love “idiots” because he gave birth to so many.
Sandy Trahan
Tracie,
Thanks again for the info. I did sign up for Pacer butam slow to learn how to get around. I still could not find my case #. I will keep plugging.
Thanks a million,
Sandy
Grammar and Spell Checker
TO: EMILY EDEN
Hi Emily, my name on this board is “Grammar and Spell Checker”. Have you ever heard of me? Obviously not.
While I applaud your effort to answer the ignorance on this board, it’s obvious that you have not been around that much. On every blog/board on the internet there are stupid ignorant people that you can never win an argument with. This is because they are stupid and ignorant and no matter what you say, they will never listen. Best thing to do is to just ignore them; you only fuel the ‘ignorance fire’ with your un-thought-out replies.
Example: You wrote the word ‘defandants’ several times; it’s spelled ‘defendants’! You also wrote the word ‘transparant’, (which is spelled ‘transparent’!) but I think you meant to say the word ‘apparent’.
Word to the wise: First write your reply in a program where you can check the spelling and grammar. Once that is correct, re-read several times what you wrote so that you yourself do not sound ignorant. Then ask yourself, ‘is what I wrote really worth posting? Am I just adding to the ignorance of the forum, or am I contributing worthwhile information?’
In this case Emily, you did not do any of the above. Next time think before you post and heed my advice because your rants make you sound just as ignorant as the person you are pointing your finger at.
Migesh
For the naysayers, this is not just about gambling. Just as they don’t know why Mirapex seems to help some Parkinson’s and RLS patients, they don’t know why it also affects compulsive behavior. I as 50 when I started taking Mirapex, which I truly wish I could go back to, but I cannot. I had never gambled before, and I had maintained a steady weight of 175 for 25 years. Within one year of taking Mirapex, I started gambling and gaining weight. I very quickly became a compulsive gambler and over-eater. I lost everything I had, meaning more than money. I lost my job, my spouse, my health, and attempted suicide. The only thing I gained was 80 pounds. All of this in 3 short years after 50 years of NO compulsive behaviors. I cannot prove the relationship to Mirapex, but find it remarkably coincidental that all of this occurred within 10 months of my first Mirapex dosage. I am now off of Mirapex, and suffering from sever RLS, but have not gambled in 18 months and have dropped 40 pounds in that 18 months. If I thought that Mirapex was not partially to blame, I would be back on it in a second due to my RLS, but I cannot take that chance.
Emily Eden To: Grammar and spell checker
TO: Grammar & Spell Checker,
Let me thank you for correcting my spelling, however this is not a spelling contest. Now ask yourself, “Is what i wrote really worth posting? Perhaps, instead of criticizing my spelling you should address the real reason for this blog. The postings here address the results of a lawsuit that involved the intentional concealment of dangerous side effects of Mirapex. Thousands of patients suffered from the major side effect of compulsiveness. As far as i know, freedom of speech is still allowed in the United States.
Grammar and Spell Checker
TO: EMILY
Heed your own advice Emily. Stick to the subject of the blog. I personally don’t need to address any reasons for this blog because some of the people on it (not including yourself) are addressing it correctly for me by stating facts and backing them up with links to factual data. You, on the other hand, are just wasting time and space with your frivolous dribble.
Let the facts about the situation speak for themselves and leave the posting here to people who know what they are talking about.
Let me guess; you’re retired and/or jobless with nothing better to do than to sit around and read & reply to blogs that you know nothing about. You’re the type of person who needs to interject yourself into every topic that you can, even if you know nothing about it.
Even though I am straying from what I am suggesting you do, I will reiterate again that if you have positive input for the subject of this blog, then by all means post it. But don’t think you’re intelligent by copying and pasting what others have written before you and don’t waste other bloggers time by your ignorant, arrogant, offensive attitude. This is not a debate over someone’s intelligence; it’s a blog about the subject of the article “Compulsive Gambler Wins Lawsuit Over Mirapex” (scroll all the way up to the top of this page and re-read the title and the article).
Always remember, ignorance is never beaten by more ignorance.
Like my pappy always said: Ignorance is like poop; the more you add to it, the larger the pile gets and the more it stinks!
My last words of wisdom to Emily: Let’s stick to the subject at hand!
Thought you would like to know
To Grammar and Spell Checker, actually, “reiterate again” is redundant and grammatically incorrect.
Grammar and Spell Checker
To : “Thought you would like to know”
Thank you for proving my point by adding to the pile of ignorance on this blog. What you pointed out was so necessary for this blog’s subject; I don’t know how it could have survived without it. (If you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic).
PS - I use Microsoft Word 2003 to check my spelling & grammar; go complain to Microsoft.
Cindy Vickers
Wow, I haven’t done a mirapex search in a few months and this morning look what I find. Yes, I am another victim of Mirapex. Gambling, hallucinations, attempted suicide, memory loss, etc. I too went through the embarassment and shame of the compulsive gambling and many other side effects. I have RLS.
I wanted to tell those who still suffer the meds I take now. My RLS symptoms are under control with this regimen.
CARBIDOPA 50/Levodopa 200 CR TABS -1 @ bedtime
GABAPENTIN 600MG - 1 @ bedtime
LORAZEPAM 2MG - 1 @ bedtime as needed.
Good Luck all, Cindy-Huntsville, AL
chancemax@aol.com
Emily Eden To: Grammar and spell checker
Bravo, You win the grammar and spelling test. I know from where i speak, my wife has Parkinsons since 1995. Please don’t insult my intelligence by making it look as if you are an expert in that field. If anything, it’s you that is wasting space and time by insisting to answer me with your insulting remarks. I’m a retired nurse that has treated many patients with Parkinsons. Where in your rebuttal do you address the heart of the subject of Parkinsons.
This Blog is to voice the results of the positive effects of the Courts Descision against the DEFANDANTS. it appears to me that you are the one that you may have nothing to do but attempt to show your knowledge or lack of knowledge in the area of Parkinsons. Isn’t your waste of time in attempting to criticize my spelling lack the whole concept of this forum? My comments here are not to argue about grammar, but to praise the Courts for awarding the plaintiffs what they truly deserve. Lets leave well enough alone, and let bygons be bygons. A truce is warranted here.
Quibbler
Spell Checker,
“frivolous dribble.”
I assume you meant drivel.
Given the content of your posts, it’s very difficult for me to keep myself from insulting you.
jocinda
hs anyone heard how the second trial is going?
Deb
Court is out till Aug 18th. I called MN District Court this morning.
Grammar and Spell Checker
To: Quibbler - Ouch! I’m so insulted! Now I won’t be able to sleep for weeks! :(
To: Emily - You’re still making many spelling errors. I’d hate to have you as a nurse (Although from the way you write, I’d bet my life that you are not even in the medical field, or ever were). I would NOT want you writing in my medical files!
Emily, the subject of this blog is NOT Parkinson’s disease! There are other drugs other than Mirapex that are given to Parkinson’s patients. The title is “Compulsive Gambler Wins Lawsuit Over Mirapex”. Its basic subject is holding ‘big pharma’ responsible for not releasing ALL the information and side effects from all their clinical tests. In this particular case, Mirapex was given to Parkinson’s and RLS patients without the warnings of the fact that their clinical tests showed a percentage of their test subjects experienced compulsive behaviors; such as gambling, sex and other compulsive disorders. I agree with you that they should be held accountable. Let’s just leave it at that.
laurie
Gee, I didn’t know that Ed left Grammar and Spell Checker in charge of telling people how to type and what they could post while he was on vacation..I must have missed that memo.
Deb
Tracie how does Oklahoma look? I’m one of the 200 plus…
Quibbler
Spell Checker,
Too bad Microsoft Office doesn’t include a brain.
Troll.
Innocent Bystander
Why all the fighting? This blog is meant to be used for positive purposes, is it not?
Quibbler: Shut Up and stay on subject.
Spell Checker: Shut Up and stay on subject.
Emily: Explain how your name is ‘Emily’ and your refer to your ‘wife’ as having Parkinson’s Disease. Since when is ‘Emily’ a man’s name?
Besides that, does anyone know if the 2nd case has settled yet?
Bartlow Hemoth
Looks like the present 2nd case is in process and will not resume until August 18th 2008.
Plaintiff seems to be ‘Robert M Zwayer’, if I am not mistaken.
Have access to Pacer? Then check out :
https://ecf.mnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?335850350305958-L_567_0-1
Emily Eden Ti Innocent Bystander
Is your name actually Incent Bystander?
Emily Eden Ti Innocent Bystander
TO Innocent Bystander, Why do you assume that we are Man & wife? Is it not possible that we are both women.
Innocent Bystander
Emily: People involved in same sex ‘relationships’ usually refer to each other as their ‘partners’. If 2 women are lovers, I would find it rare that one of them considers themselves as the ‘husband’ and the other as the ‘wife’.
Also, in your previous post (on August 14th), you infer that your name is not really ‘Emily’ and that you are using the name as a pseudonym; which probably means that you were trying to say that you are a man using a female name; and that’s why you mentioned your ‘wife’ earlier.
But give it a rest already. Stick to the subject of the blog.
I will not waste the other bloggers time by playing into your childish games; you don’t seem to know when enough is enough. You mentioned a ‘truce’ earlier to ‘Spell Checker’, so why not just shut up already?
One last note: If your ‘wife’ honestly suffers from Parkinson’s disease, my heart and prayers go out to her. But I feel even worse for her because she has to deal with someone like you on a daily basis.
unhappy
In reply to just wanted you to know.
This is how the breakdown of the 8.2 million would be distributed in your state taxed the punitive damage award.
8.2million
40% to Lawyers 3.3
75% to State 5.9
unhappy
40% Lawyer 3.3m
70% State tax 5.9m
——
9.2m
total award 8.2m
——
victim owes (1.0) Million
unhappy
What are the states that tax punitive damages?
harpy
I will not waste the other bloggers time by playing into your childish games
Too late.
Update
The second and third trials have settled. Terms undisclosed.
Deb
To Update: How do you know that? Do you have facts to support this?
LZ
Yes, 2nd and 3rd trials have settled-my sister works for the law firm handling the trials and she called me this evening. No amounts are being released yet.
Deb
When did this happen? I just talked to them on Friday??
marilyn
I, too, am a plantiff. I just hung up with the law office and they refuse to release ANY info including whether we won. I think the Judge slammed them so badly on the 2nd case that they all went into the “backroom” for a week to hammer out a deal. Will be anxious. obviously, to hear the details on this one. Do ALL states tax punitive….that is SOOOOO unfair. We are the ones that were damaged…for sure!
Bonnie Stassi
I was wondering if someone would give me name and #’s to lawyers that are taking this cases. I see through these messages I’m not alone,there’s help and hope. Thanks, Bonnie
Update
rkmc.com
delores warren
my laywer told me thatit would be 2009 at least until we heard anything, kind of a downer since i would think that the drug co would want to get it all settled also we looked on irs site and puntive no fica was not taken out of puntive . this is per irs site my laywer said the surpreme court on the case called levin might have a play in what would happen where do you feel we are from here? any update anyone has would be a help i was also told by minn ct that third case didnt go to court at all.first i feel as we will at least recoup our loses i lost my home, then i talk to my laywer and go down real quick as didnt get the feeling he thought we would win any big amount -me i just want a home again that what i want to recoup
THOOUGHT YOU SHOULD KNOW
Delores, I am so sorry to hear that you lost your home. I know the hell that mirapex has put you through, and I pray that all of us whom Boehrinlger Ingleheim has destroyed will prevail. I do hope that you and other victims will acquaint yourself with the next hurdle we might have to overcome. In November, the Supreme Court will hear Wyeth v. Levine, a case that could have horrible ramifications on drug litigation. Basically what this case will concern is federal preemption, or that drug companies cannot be sued if the FDA has approved a drug. The Court has already ruled such concerning medical devices. All this is really is Bush’s means of aiding big business at the expense of the individual. Do research on Wyeth v. Levine and you will see how Bush appointed Daniel Troy as chief counsel to the FDA. Troy had previously worked for the drug industry. He still does–he went back to work for Big Phama after his stint with the FDA. This is all the more reason that we must get a Democrat in the White House. Do your research on drug preempton, and I think you will agree.
marilyn bentley
To Delores Warren what law firm are u using? Is it in Minneapolis? thanks
marilyn bentley
Delores….Is yout attorney the one in Minneapolis?
delores
salkow in cal
Observer
To Emily and Innocent Bystander:
Why don’t the two of you take your feud elsewhere? This is not the site for the both of you to be constantly bickering about things that have no significance to the Mirapex case.
Observer
In regard to Levine testimony in the Supreme Court in November. If these Mirapex cases are settled prior to his testimony, and the outcome is negative, will it affect these cases that have already been settled?
tm
delores looks like you and i have alot in common ide like to communicate with you via email if thats ok with you
tm
tm
does anyone know why the levine case can change the outlook on the mirapex cases.
i thought this case was about how the warnings should read from( should have known about the risks and warned) to. (knew and intenionaaly withheld or misrepresented information.)
i beleive from the outcome of the first trial the lawyers were able to prove the latter so i beleive the mirapex lawsuites are valid… no matter what the outcome of levine
Justice in Michigan
tm - I haven’t followed this thread and so don’t know particulars of the Miraplex issues.
However, if Supreme Court upholds broad preemption in Levine, it is potentially applicable to all current cases. If Miraplex was FDA approved at whatever relevant time point - and whether or not it was proven that manufacturer withheld informaion - it would probably be preempted (e.g., a case would be dismissed) under broad preemption ruling.
That is why some companies are holding back settlements now, in the hope of using preemption to avoid _any_ liability later. In other instances, they are offering what they themselves call the “Levine discount.” Settle now, for less, or risk getting nothing at all after Levine decided.
BTW, case will be argued in early Nov., but decision not likely to come until several weeks after than.
Hopefully, this makes it clear my many of us see preemption as so serious an issue. There is, indeed, “nowhere to hide.” And there should be nowhere that candidates, of either party, are not obliged to make their own position clear. So far, that has not happened.
Justice in Michigan
To Observer - If cases have already been settled, I don’t think Levine could undo those. If somewhere in process, it is conceivable that company lawyers could appeal based on “preemption defense” and any settlement in the works would no longer be.
Harry B.
Here is some information on the taxability of punitive damage awards. If you are required to report the award you report the gross settlement and deduct the attorneys fees as a schedule A deduction which is subject to AMT. ——————————————————————————-
Individuals
Taxability of Damage Awards for Sex/Gender Discrimination
The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (SBJPA) made significant changes to the Code exclusion-from-income provisions for damage awards resulting from personal physical injury or physical sickness claims. The SBJPA made two amendments that affected Sec. 104(a)(2). The exclusion for punitive damages was eliminated, even if the damages are paid as a result of a personal physical injury or physical sickness. (This was not the case under prior law.) Further, the SBJPA specifies that emotional distress is not intended to be defined as a personal physical injury or sickness. The result is that damages awarded in cases originating from gender discrimination suits will no longer be excludible from income.
While the SBJPA cleared up some of the confusion surrounding the proper treatment of damage awards received under a variety of circumstances and issues, it may have also created new issues and conflicts. For instance, it appears that the treatment of damage awards associated with age discrimination and wrongful employment issues may have been settled, while issues dealing with damage awards and settlements for emotional distress have been made more complicated.
Types of Awards
Several types of judgments are associated with legal actions giving rise to damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages and prejudgment interest; also included are damages for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, back pay, payments for emotional distress and for lost wages or profits. To be eligible for exclusion from income, damages must be sought through some legal action, giving rise to a tort or tort-like claim. This definition has been the focal point for damages arising from gender discrimination lawsuits. The focus is on determining the nature of the underlying action that results in a claim.
In general, damage amounts fall into two or three classifications with a specific intent behind the settlement feature. Damages for lost wages or profits (or amounts received as back pay) are generally categorized as compensatory in nature. Compensatory damages are amounts received arising out of tort or tort-like claims and may be pursued under the applicable legal statutes (such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, as amended (CRA)).
Compensatory damages include damages for physical injuries, emotional distress and physical sickness. Likewise, damage amounts received for loss of consortium or for medical payments related to physical injury or sickness are also considered compensatory in nature. Amounts awarded to punish or that serve to prevent future behavior are generally punitive-type damages and are not received as a result of tort or tort-like claims. Punitive damages are more economic than personal in nature.
Title VII under the CRA provides for damages arising from gender or racial discrimination acts or both, as defined therein. Amendments adopted in 1991 provide for other remedies, including punitive damages and awards for pain and suffering (i.e., emotional distress). Under other similar statutes, damages include amounts awarded for wrongful termination, breach of contract and severance pay. Damage awards may also be paid as a result of actions brought for libel, slander and defamation of character, involving personal and professional reputation (which have been considered personal injuries in the past). Remedies for personal injury affecting personal reputation could include damages for emotional distress resulting from personal humiliation and shame. In general, the taxability of damages received is related to the underlying nature of the item for which the damages are paid.
Controversy of Damage Awards and Excludibility
Current law seemingly makes clear what is and is not excludible from income by specifically addressing punitive damages (no longer excludible) and by modifying the language in the Code that denies exclusion of damages received (except in cases that arise from only personal physical injury or physical sickness).
However, a close reading of the SBJPA Committee Reports reveals that damages received for emotional distress, when awarded as a result of an action originating from a personal physical injury or personal physical sickness, should still be excludible. Therefore, a plausible argument can be made that a damage award based on emotional distress is still an area in which the law may be challenged. Even though the SBJPA committee reports show clear intent that damage awards for emotional distress are not to be excluded, the symptoms of emotional distress take on physical characteristics (such as headache and nausea). Sec. 104(a) states that damages received (not in excess of amounts paid for medical care) attributable to emotional distress are excludible. In addition, damages received for emotional distress as a direct result of a personal physical injury or personal physical sickness are fully excludible. (Note: Currently, there is a proposal in the House (H.R. 1923) to restore the income exclusion for damage awards for emotional distress.)
Damage awards received for emotional distress (such as pain and suffering) have been held to be excludible from income in the past. This is so partly because of the interpretation of the specific wording of the statute prior to the SBJPA and partly because different courts have imposed different interpretations on the meaning of personal injury and sickness. Contributing to this confusion is the variance in court decisions about how damage awards for emotional distress are categorized. Some courts hold that damages associated with emotional distress are clearly personal in nature and, therefore, excludible, while others look only to the underlying cause of the action giving rise to settlement damages (and not the nature of the payment).
The courts reason that, if the cause of action is personal in nature, damages awarded for such claims (including punitive damages) are excludible from income. However, over time, the focus shifted to whether or not certain punitive damages should be excluded from income. Before any damage awards can be excludible from income, they first must result from a tort or tort-like action. Further, the remedies for such claims must be specifically provided for in an applicable statute (for gender discrimination, the CRA) and must be compensatory in nature (as opposed to punitive).
Two tests for determining the applicability of the exclusion have been established. The first asks if the underlying cause of action leading to an award is the result of a tort or tort-like claim; the second test asks if the damages awarded are “on account of a personal injury or sickness.” Both tests must be met for damages to be excluded. The reasoning goes to whether the damages are punitive in nature. If punitive, they could not, by definition, be personal in nature and, therefore, not due to personal injury or sickness. Current law changes the focus from looking to the nature of the settlement award to focusing on the nature of the underlying claim to determine if the award is excludible.
Current law denies exclusion for damage awards based on gender discrimination, because such discrimination does not embody personal injury or sickness, such damage awards do not stem from tort or tort-like claims, and the award itself does not compensate for personal injury. Even punitive damage awards for emotional distress are not excludible; punitive damages do not compensate injury, but are private fines designed to punish reprehensible conduct and act as a deterrent of future similar behavior.
Structure and Settlement Issues/Future Implications
It is clear from the history of damage awards that how amounts paid are defined or stated in a settlement agreement goes a long way in determining whether they are taxable. Potential tax planning positions may hinge on how well tax advisers craft settlements. For instance, proper tax treatment depends on whether structured settlements include compensatory (and not punitive) damages; these settlements should be structured, to the extent possible, so that the highest amount possible can be allocated to compensatory damages.
To the extent that specific statutes limit compensatory amounts and amounts considered punitive, only limited tax planning is possible. However, out-of-court settlements might be structured so that the taxpayer can gain maximum advantage. One would want to carefully consider the language and structure of the settlement terms (to the extent possible). Clearly, settlement awards from a personal physical injury or sickness should be structured so that the largest amounts possible fall under the category of compensatory damages. This would also apply to medical payments specifically associated with any emotional distress arising from a physical injury.
Damage awards received for gender discrimination will be fully taxable to the recipient, unless it can be shown that certain amounts are reimbursements resulting from physical injury or physical illness (such as medical payments for emotional distress). This is without regard to whether the payment is compensatory or punitive in nature. Only damage awards or structured settlements that include amounts designated for emotional distress are open to debate as to whether they will be taxable.
Conclusion
Currently, most gender discrimination settlements or awards are fully taxable, including damages awarded for emotional distress and punitive damages. With Congress contemplating changing this law in the future, it is important for CPAs to be keenly aware of current legal positions when advising clients as to the taxability of awards and settlements in gender discrimination cases.
From Arthur D. Cassill, Ph.D., CPA, Associate Professor of Accounting, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, and Rhonda Sugarman, MS, CPA, Product Development Manager, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Jersey City, NJ (Neither associated with BDO Seidman)
——————————————————————————–
2000 AICPA
delores
my computer has been down -tm yes by e mail deloreswarren@yahoo.com i was also thinking whatever the levin case outcome shouldnt have effect on whatever cases are already going olny the future cases after a date such as any cases filed after nov or dec . what do you think i just want it to be settled with what we can recoup of our hard earned money which if we had not been on mirapex we would still have. also i dont want to write the personal stuff that happened to me how i broke my mom heart and she has since died and i cant tell her my behavior was a direct result of the drug and i have to live with it every day of how i hurt my family .no amount can make up . 0
delores
my laywer sent me a letter saying the outcome of levin will be decided late 2008 or early 2009 and in their collective opion regardless of the outcome of levin with the recent trial victory in the charbonneau v boehringer ingelheim and pifizer will ultimately be the catalyst for a postive outcome in the mirapex litigation. this was wrote on aug 8 before sec or thrid trial so dont know if the last two outcomes helps us or not
tm
thank you justice in michigan
but here is another question the levine case i beleive is about changing the warning lable i guess to protect the future pharmacuticals cpmpanys from futher lawsuites
instead of should have known and warned about the risks to
new and intentionally withheld or misrepresented information..
i beleive the jury in the first case from what i read found them guilty on all accounts……..
so i was thinking
that no matter the outcome of levine the lawyers did a great job of finding bip guilty of the new warnings anyway am i right please answer asap thank you for your comment tm
tm
boy thease pharmacutical companys alway seen to wiggle there way out of everything now this levine case ..
there trying to avoid taking responsibilty for there negelance.
lets face it they knew the dangers of this drug and went ahead with it so they could make there billion and beleive me they did and still do make billions from it.They didnt care about whos life they would destroy after all they have big fancy lawyers who they hope will find a loophole to get then out of any mess.
God help anyone in the future if the levine decision goes there way if you are affected in any way by the drugs they make to bad.
If you lose a loved one if you suffer in any way
grin and bare it because there will be no recorce for you.
but they will go on making there billions proberly becomming more lapsed in there recearch of the drug because after they are not going to be accountable if.
lets prey that the supreme court looks at the negertive side of this dision and does the right thing because who knows maybe they will be in our shoes some day…..
Justice in Michigan
tm - I’m a little unclear about your question because of typos. But the case has been summarized on the blog many times.
In short, plaintiff claims that Wyeth should have unilaterally warned about dangers of injecting Phenergan by Push IV method. Wyeth claims such a warning was never requested by FDA, and even that it was considered and rejected.
So this is not a simple case - at least as compared with those where there this more definitive evidence of a company sitting on data which they should reasonably have made known.
The recent thread on “CBE re