Comments on: Pfizer Tries To Bully Law Firm Into Celebrex Deal

By: Kev

Kev — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:42:01 +0000

I think it should be required I am a Nurse and also a claimment in this matter. I suffered a Massive stroke (CVA) and provided the Medical Proof, Pharmacy Records. Medical Records and all this was Provided when the claim was filed so why would One Lawfirm feel that they are different from the others.

It is too easy to say I had a Stroke CVA, or Heart Attact MI but where is Proof, We in American not only have the right to make the claim but also the right to Prove it. When there is not proof, then there is NO CLAIM.

Pfizer has every right to ask for Proof, I would want proof if someone was makeing claims as almost 7 thousand starting out did. Now almost half have been dismissed due to Multi claims of Vioxx or NO PROOF.

By: julie

julie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:06:49 +0000

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.

By: michael

michael — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:01:35 +0000

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.

By: judy

judy — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:51:05 +0000

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.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:24:16 +0000

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.

By: atlex

atlex — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:30:58 +0000

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

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:11:44 +0000

Ed,

Cant believe Im saying this,.. I believe Pfizer’s actions are appropiate. As you know Ive been through litigation, and its not easy.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:44:05 +0000

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.

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:20:15 +0000

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

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:10:20 +0000

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.