Pfizer Tries To Bully Law Firm Into Celebrex Deal
14 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 4th, 2008 // 4:34 pm
A federal judge overseeing litigation involving Bextra and Celebrex ordered plaintiffs to submit info designed to determine which cases are suitable for trial, The Daily Journal reports. But the order only applies to plaintiffs represented by one firm, Weitz & Luxenberg.
And the narrow focus of the order, which was based on a motion by Pfizer, led the law firm to argue in court documents that the drugmaker is attempting to bully it into settling its 250 cases. In May, Pfizer reportedly reached tentative settlements with some groups of plaintiffs who allege the painkillers caused heart attacks and strokes.
In its motion, Pfizer argued plaintiffs should submit expert causation reports; medical records confirming injury; prescription records documenting dosage and proof the medication was taken, the paper writes. The procedure “promotes judicial efficiency by weeding out cases that lack a bare minimum of medical proof,” according to Pfizer’s motion. And the plaintiffs’ liaison counsel agreed the motion should only apply to the plaintiffs at Weitz & Luxenberg, according to the paper.
But the real purpose of Pfizer’s motion, according to Weitz & Luxenberg lawyer Ellen Relkin, was to pressure her firm into settling its cases the way other firms have done. In the Bextra and Celebrex litigation, “there are tacit settlements between Pfizer and individual firms, independent of the (multi-district litigation),” she wrote. “To ask this court to issue an onerous order directed to one particular firm…is plainly coercive and retaliatory.”
A Pfizer spokesman declined to comment to the paper, except to say the drugmaker was pleased with the judge’s order.
Paul G
I am sorry, I don’t see the bullying here. Why would the law firm not want to submit what seems to be reasonable data. As everyone saw with Vioxx, thousands tried to get money implying they had been damaged by Vioxx when they never even took the drug.
In my humble opinion, I think it is the plaintiff lawyers who are doing the bullying.
BPW
Once a bully, always a bully! the goons can’t help themselves!
BDJ
The firm I retained required all this information well over two years ago and I was required to review it last April. Sounds like Weitz & Luxenberg did not do their homework.
Ed Silverman
Hi BDJ,
Simply to clarify the record, the paper also reported the law firm argued the reports were “unnecessary and unfairly burdensome because each plaintiff already submitted fact sheets to the court that include medical history.” The firm’s lawyer also estimated the reports would cost around $10,000 each, and that such reports are generally ordered as “a sanction to plaintiffs who failed to provide adequate discovery and that more than 60 days is required to comply with any such order.”
You can read the law firm’s argument in its motion, which can be seen by clicking on the words ’she wrote’ in the graph where the Weitz & Luxenberg lawyer is quoted.
I’m not taking sides on this, but trying to ensure info is available to get the picture.
Regards
ed
Justice in Michigan
It may surprise some that, based on the story as reported, I agree with BDJ.
I never get answers to questions I ask Paul G., but I’ll try again:
“As everyone saw with Vioxx, thousands tried to get money implying they had been damaged by Vioxx when they never even took the drug.”
Can you point us to anything that documents this assertion?
Justice in Michigan
I had not seen Ed’s clarifying note when I wrote the first part of the above.
I am left thinking I do not have the info to judge one way or other on that piece.
But I’m still interested in any documentation Paul G. can provide for his assertion.
Ed Silverman
Hi JIM,
I would have provided a link to the newspaper story, but it is available only by subscription, and so I chose to excerpt what I felt were the most pertinent portions without overstepping any bounds.
However, as I indicated previously, I also provided the link to the Weitz motion. Perhaps doing so in the middle of a quote wasn’t such a good idea, but I thought it would be noticeable. In any event, one can read the firm’s motion to understand its position, for better or worse.
Hope this helps,
ed
Justice in Michigan
Thanks, Ed.
Re: my own question, there is a reasonable recent summary of the Vioxx settlements at
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS237832+07-Mar-2008+PRN20080307
As reported there, 44,000 of 47,000 litigants had submitted relevant documentation. And there was still a month to go before everything was due. Meanwhile, all of it was being supervised by three special masters.
Frankly, I was surprised that the numbers were that high. Unquestionably, there is some number of fraudulent claims. But suggesting that there are untold thousands, with no reference to the wider context of many more thousands of certified claims, is just more lurid propaganda from people who hate civil justice.
Lisa Van S
Ed,
Cant believe Im saying this,.. I believe Pfizer’s actions are appropiate. As you know Ive been through litigation, and its not easy.
atlex
Ed,
Your use of the term “bully” is pejorative. By using that term, you clearly have adopted the plaintiff attorney’s viewpoint. If I didn’t know you fairly well through Pharmalot, I might be inclined to believe that you are a shill for plaintiffs’ attorneys. (I intentionally used the term “shill” because, like “bully”, it is pejorative.)
You seemed to have concluded that Pfizer is wrong despite the fact that a judge, who is assumed to be more knowledgable on points of law and who is held responsible for ensuring a just process and decision, has decided that it is the plaintiff attorney who is legally wrong. The judge’s decision indicates that Pfizer’s request was legal and fair.
Atlex
Simon
After reading “she wrote” PDF document, I find it interesting that W & L P.C. may be the only firm standing strong to see these cases to the end. Making sure their plaintiffs are given there Constitutional Rights to their day in court, assuming Pfizer does not come up with a figure agreeable by both parties. Makes me wonder what the other firms are agreeing to since no one actually knows what has been offered.
judy
unless you were one of the victims of these drugs ,you have no idea what we have suffered.I had a heart attack and had to have surgery.I had no heart problems before taking celebrex .If I had known the risk I would have never taken this drug .I was only 53 years old with no family history of heart disease when I had my attack,my heart is now damaged and I havnt been able to work for the last 5 years .I will never be the same active person I was.
michael
I am a plaintiff’s attorney with a Celebrex client in mdl-01699. The dialogue in these posts is a lot more substantive than any communication I have received from the firm handling my client’s case - and it has been more than two years. I won’t name the firm, but the dearth of communication during this crucial phase is a bit disturbing. Thanks for the information and insights.
julie
To all who have suffered injury from this drug i am truly sorry for you. I do know what you’re going through. I lost my husband, after he had a massive stroke at the age of 55. He had been taking celebrex in large doses as recommended by his dr.
I too, hear nothing on any settement talks. The one letter i got back in may from my attorneys promised a settlement information package to follow in 30 days. Here it is October and nothing ! Not a word. I’m totally in the dark.
You’re right michael, “death of communication” is exactly what it is.