After big verdicts: Has Johnson & Johnson lost its way? //NJ LawJournal

After big verdicts: Has Johnson & Johnson lost its way? //NJ Law Journal
by Charles Toutant and Max Mitchell // NJ Law Journal

Plaintiffs lawyers haven been winning a steady stream of big products liability verdicts against Johnson & Johnson recently, and some have suggested the company's size makes it a bigger target for litigation—and also more willing to take cases to trial.

All the litigation hasn't kept Wall Street from taking a liking to Johnson & Johnson—several brokerages upgraded their ratings on the company's stock in recent weeks, including Goldman Sachs, which changed its prognosis for Johnson & Johnson to "neutral," after rating it "sell" for 14 months. But the heavy burden of litigation facing the company may have some questioning the company's direction and management.

On March 17, a federal jury in Dallas ordered the company to pay $502 million to five plaintiffs who claimed the company's Pinnacle artificial hips failed prematurely. And on Feb. 22, a state jury in Missouri returned a $72 million verdict in the case of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to long-term use of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products. The company is expected to appeal both verdicts.

On another front, Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals has been hit with plaintiff verdicts in three of the four cases tried before Philadelphia juries in the past year concerning a tendency by antipsychotic drug Risperdal to cause male users to develop breasts. The company has seen verdicts of $500,000, $2.5 million and $1.75 million in those cases. Also in Philadelphia, the company was hit with verdicts of $12.5 million in January and $13.5 million in February over its pelvic mesh products. And in the fall, the company faces the first trial in multidistrict litigation in Philadelphia of 217 suits claiming that Tylenol causes liver damage.

In addition, on March 29, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld an $11.1 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc. in the first bellwether pelvic mesh trial in New Jersey state court.

Erik Gordon, who studies drug companies as an assistant professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, said he sees a departure from the vow by Johnson & Johnson's founders to put patients' interests ahead of those of stockholders.

"J&J seems to have changed from a company that lived its famous credo of putting patients first to a company that puts 'hit the sales numbers' first and cites the credo, with feeling, when it is in a public relations mess related to allegedly defective products," Gordon said.

The root cause of the verdicts lies in the conduct of Johnson & Johnson, said Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, who recently tried two pelvic mesh cases against the company to verdict for a total of $26 million in jury awards.

"Johnson & Johnson is being told by juries that they have acted negligently and recklessly more than any other company in the United States," Specter said. "Their internal documents demonstrate that they are a company that has lost its way, and they are putting sales over safety."Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202753661247/Are-Big-Verdicts-a-Sign-Johnson-amp-Johnson-Has-Lost-Its-Way#ixzz44UWGkrpe

GM Wins Defense Verdict In 2nd Ignition-Switch Trial - Law360

BREAKING: GM Wins Defense Verdict In 2nd Ignition-Switch Trial - Law360

by Cara Salvatore



Law360, New York (March 30, 2016, 11:23 AM ET) -- 

General Motors on Wednesday won the second bellwether trial in the continuing fight over its defective ignition switches, as a New York federal jury found that GM cars were unreasonably dangerous but did not find that plaintiffs' injuries were caused by their car, a Saturn roadster.

The trial, selected by GM as a test of some of the weaker claims in a pool of hundreds of lawsuits, had been closely watched after a first bellwether disintegrated when the plaintiff was accused of lying. And this one wasn't without its own drama: Over its two-plus weeks, two separate jurors were dismissed for sleeping.

The verdict came only after the remaining eight sent a flurry of notes indicating confusion with the flow of the complicated verdict form.

Plaintiff Dionne Spain, the owner of a blue 2007 Saturn Sky, blamed GM's now-infamous ignition-switch design defect for her crash on the Crescent City Connection bridge in New Orleans in January 2014 as she and passenger Lawrence Barthelemy drove across it to go to a poetry reading.

Police and GM's reconstructionists blamed black ice; Spain and Barthelemy said the Sky suffered from the same ignition-switch defect that has caused scores of deaths. A small metal plunger that was supposed to keep the ignition slotted into the “Run” position was too weak and could be turned off by inertia from road bumps or driving maneuvers or by jostles from a driver's knee, an industry-rocking report called the Valukas report found amid GM's 2014 recalls.

On any occasion when the weak switch flipped backward to "Accessory," the engine would cut out, airbags would be disabled, and power steering and power brake assist would stop, as would, of course, the ability to accelerate to keep up with traffic.

GM presented a mountain of medical records during the trial suggesting that Spain and Barthelemy did not sustain the injuries they claimed to have from the crash. Both suffered back pain before and after the crash, but GM presented many records suggesting that the back pain after the crash was not purported to have stemmed from it. Spain was a medical receptionist, Barthelemy a barge washing supervisor.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman had dismissed a handful of claims shortly before the trial, and dismissed another after the defense rested its case.

In Emails, N.H.L. Officials Conceded Concussion Risks of Fights - The New York Times

HOCKEY

In Emails, N.H.L. Officials Conceded Concussion Risks of Fights

By JOHN BRANCHMARCH 28, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

Photo

Commissioner Gary Bettman in January. Emails among N.H.L. officials, unsealed in a court battle, acknowledge that so-called enforcers frequently use pills “to ease the pain.” CreditMark Humphrey/Associated Press

The N.H.L.’s top officials have privately acknowledged that fighting could lead to concussions and long-term health problems, including depression, and that so-called enforcers frequently use pills “to ease the pain,” according to emails unsealed during a continuing court battle with former players.

The exchanges, mostly between Commissioner Gary Bettman and his top lieutenants in 2011, contradict what the league has said publicly and what it has argued in defending itself from a class-action lawsuit brought by dozens of former players over the effects of concussions.

After three N.H.L. enforcers died between May and August 2011 — all either by suicide or accidentally while struggling with personal problems — league officials contemplated in a series of emails whether to eliminate fighting from the league.

“An interesting question is whether being an NHL fighter does this to you (I don’t believe so) or whether a certain type of person (who wouldn’t otherwise be skilled enough to be an NHL player) gravitates to this job (I believe more likely),” Bettman wrote in an email on Sept. 3, 2011.

The email was sent to Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly and to Brendan Shanahan, then the league’s senior vice president for player safety and hockey operations. Shanahan, now president of the Toronto Maple Leafs, started the email chain by sharing a link to an article in the newspaper The Globe and Mail of Toronto, with the headline “Getting Rid of Hockey’s Goons.”

New FDA Rules Put Onus On Doctors To Curb Opioid Abuse - Law360

New FDA Rules Put Onus On Doctors To Curb Opioid Abuse - Law360

by Sindu Sindhar

Law360, New York (March 28, 2016, 10:39 PM ET) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's latest efforts to address what public health officials consider an epidemic of opioid abuse put the onus squarely on doctors to limit prescriptions of the controversial painkillers, in what some attorneys say is a tacit acknowledgment of the agency's difficulty in policing what drugmakers and pharmaceutical sales representatives actually tell doctors about opioids.

The FDA last week announced that it is requiring stronger warnings on immediate-release opioids, to alert doctors and patients to their risks for "risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose and death," according to the agency. The stronger warnings also include a so-called boxed or black box warning, meant to alert patients to the most serious side effects, highlighting the risks of taking opioids during pregnancy. Prolonged use of immediate-release opioids — which can be taken up to six times a day — during pregnancy can result in children born with potentially fatal opioid withdrawal, the agency said. The agency had previously required such warnings for extended-release opioids, which pack higher doses than their immediate-release counterparts, and can be taken only up to twice a day.

The move followed a similarly prescriber-focused approach by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which cautioned doctors to limit prescribing opioids for shorter durations of up to three days. One of the striking features of the FDA's approach here is that it doesn't really ramp up the agency's scrutiny of how drugmakers discuss opioids with doctors, attorneys say.

Black box warnings typically require drugmakers to highlight these labeled risks to doctors when promoting them, but in practice, the agency has few means to supervise what pharmaceutical sales representatives are telling prescribers about their opioids, attorneys say. Significantly, the FDA has not even required opioid drugmakers to send out so-called "Dear Doctor" letters, which the agency usually tells pharmaceutical companies to send to doctors to inform them of new safety issues.

"I don’t think [the new rules] are toothless with respect to changing prescribing habits," said Pete Kaufman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP. "However, if it's intended to affect manufacturers' advertising practices or the way they market to physicians, I doubt it will be all that effective."

The agency did not indicate why it chose not to require drugmakers to send out letters to doctors alerting them of changes, but spokeswoman Sarah Peddicord told Law360 on Monday that the agency has worked to inform doctors about the new warnings through a number of means.

DOJ asks court to approve $20 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement - Petro Global News

DOJ asks court to approve $20 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement - Petro Global News

The U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal judge on Tuesday to approve the $20 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement reached with BP last year.

In a statement, the DOJ said it asked the federal court in New Orleans to approve a proposed settlement reached in October 2015 to settle the government’s civil claim under the Clean Water Act and natural resources damage claims under the Oil Pollution Act.

U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier upheld a ruling in November 2014 that found BP guilty of “gross negligence” leading up to the Deepwater Horizon accident.

Fla. Justices Lower Smokers' Hurdle For Engle Class Eligibility - Law360

Fla. Justices Lower Smokers' Hurdle For Engle Class Eligibility - Law360

by Carolina Bolado

Law360, Miami (March 24, 2016, 3:21 PM ET) -- One week after the Florida Supreme Court expanded punitive damages for Engle progeny plaintiffs, tobacco companies were dealt another blow Thursday as the court ruled that a smoker did not need an official diagnosis before the cutoff date for membership in the original Engle class.

In a 5-2 decision by Justice Barbara Pariente, the state's highest court affirmed a $3.2 million jury award for Pamela Ciccone, whose husband George Ciccone died of lung cancer in 2002, and said she is eligible for membership in the decertified class because he was clearly showing signs of peripheral vascular disease or PVD, a smoking-related disease that thins the arteries and causes poor circulation in extremities, before the 1996 cutoff.

The court said that the original Engle ruling held that the “critical event” to establish membership in the class was “when the disease or condition first manifested itself,” a phrase that had been interpreted in different ways by two different appeals courts, in favor of inclusion of nondiagnosed smokers by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Ciccone's case and exclusion by the First District Court of Appeal in another suit.

But the Supreme Court resolved the conflict by concluding that “manifestation” is “the point at which the plaintiff began suffering from or experiencing symptoms of a tobacco-related disease or medical condition.”

“Under the definition we adopt, the plaintiff does not need to have been formally diagnosed or know that the symptoms were tobacco-related prior to the 'cutoff date' for class membership,” the court said.

OTHERWISE: Sen. Hatch's Op-Ed: `Let Voters Decide' dodges responsibility for choosing a Scalia Successor- The New York Times

OTHERWISE: Sen. Hatch's Op-Ed: `Let Voters Decide' dodges responsibility for choosing a Scalia Successor- The New York Times

On C.T.E. and Athletes, Science Remains in Its Infancy - The New York Times

On C.T.E. and Athletes, Science Remains in Its Infancy - The New York Times

by Benedict Carey

BEDFORD, Mass. — In a small room banked by refrigerators of preserved brains, a pathologist held a specimen up to the light in frank admiration. Then it was time to cut — once in half and then a thick slice from the back, the tissue dense and gray-pink, teeming with folds and swirls.

It was the brain of a professional running back.

“There,” said Dr. Ann McKee, the chief of neuropathology at the V.A. Boston Healthcare System and a professor of neurology and pathology at Boston University’s medical school, pointing to a key area that had an abnormal separation. “That’s one thing we look for right away.”

Over the past several years, Dr. McKee’s lab, housed in a pair of two-story brick buildings in suburban Boston, has repeatedly made headlines by revealing that deceased athletes, including at least 90 former N.F.L. players, were found to have had a degenerative brain disease called chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or C.T.E., that is believed to cause debilitating memory and mood problems. This month, after years of denying or playing down a connection, a top N.F.L. official acknowledged at a hearing in Washington that playing football and having C.T.E. were “certainly” linked.

His statement effectively ended a very public dispute over whether head blows sustained while playing football are associated with the disorder. But it will not resolve a quieter debate among scientists about how much risk each football player has of developing it, or answer questions about why some players seem far more vulnerable to it than others.

KEEP READING

Meet Ken Feinberg - the Master of Disasters // NY Observer

Wherein I get some "ink". - gwc
Meet Ken Feinberg - the Master of Disasters //NY Observer

“It’s certainly a triumph of branding. There’s no doubt about that,” said George Conk, a law professor at Fordham University and an expert on torts law. “He’s a dominant presence.”

"His real innovation may have been realizing that if you want a Resolution, you have to make sure everyone participates in a claims program. This means “you’ve got to offer just about everybody something, including people who have weak claims,” said Mr. Conk, the Fordham University professor. “You can’t pay fraudulent claims, but you can pay weak claims."

ABA Opposes Med-Mal Cap in Federal bill //TortsProf Blog

TortsProf Blog

The ABA has sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte voicing opposition to: (1) a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, (2) several liability, and (3) a provision allowing judges to reduce contingent fees for plaintiffs' attorneys. The ABA Journal has the story, including a pdf of the letter.