The federal judge presiding over the Prempro federal litigation yesterday reversed a jury’s $27 million punitive damages award last March to a woman who claimed she developed breast cancer after using hormone replacement drugs, according to Mealy’s Litigation Report.

US Judge William Wilson of the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that expert testimony provided by the plaintiff’s expert was improperly admitted and he ordered a new trial. And he apologized to the jury by saying the reversal was his own fault. “I admitted much evidence that should not have been admitted,” he wrote at the conclusion of his 52-page ruling.

On March 6, the jury ordered Wyeth to pay $19.4 million and Pfizer’s Pharmacia unit to pay $7.7 million after finding that the drugmakers acted inappropriately in marketing their hormone replacement therapies - Prempro, Premarin and Provera. But a May 9 hearing was held after the drugmakers filed motions seeking to toss the damages or obtain a new trial.

However, Wilson decided that portions of the testimony given by Suzanne Parisian, a regulatory expert for plaintiff Donna Scroggin, regarding certain company and FDA documents shouldn’t have been admitted during the punitive damages phase because they were outside the parameters of her expert report or the scope of her qualifications. Here is the ruling and Wyeth’s statement.

“Dr. Parisian was designated to testify on regulations and the standards and practice in the industry based on her experience,” Judge Wilson wrote on page 19. “Yet, Dr. Parisian’s punitive damages stage testimony was hardly expert in nature. The question and answer sessions merely paid lip service to Dr. Parisian testifying from an expert standpoint.”

As a result, Wilson ruled that Scroggin failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant punitive damages. “Since this case lacked substantial evidence, I should not have submitted the punitive damages issues to go to the jury,” he wrote on page 49. “Plaintiff presented evidence of what, at first blush, might be considered unsavory practices (e.g. ghostwriting, advertising, countering negative press, etc.), but it falls short of establishing a submissible jury issue.”