New Jersey Personal Injury Blog

Merck is Jerking Investors Around in Securities Fraud Case

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:20:30 GMT

Today, lawyers for drug giant Merck, infamous maker of the blockbuster painkiller Vioxx, delivered oral arguments to the Supreme Court saying that their shareholders had waited too long to file securities lawsuits alleging that Merck had misrepresented the safety of Vioxx.

According to Merck’s attorneys, investors should have filed their suits earlier, since information suggesting Merck had committed securities fraud was widely available as early as 2001. (The suits were filed in 2003, just after the two-year statute of limitations had expired, attorneys claim.) Somewhat contradictorily, the attorneys also argue that investors never had enough information to make a case for securities fraud against the company.

At least some of the justices, thank goodness, were dubious.

"Companies can't have it both ways," Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for Merck.

Justice Stephen Breyer said Merck's position, in effect, would require plaintiffs to file lawsuits before they had enough evidence to back them up. "That doesn't make sense to me," he said. –Wall Street Journal

Vioxx was Merck’s biggest seller until it was withdrawn from the market in 2004 for causing thousands of strokes and heart attacks. Merck ended up settling with former Vioxx users for more than $4 billion.

Merck shareholders are now seeking billions in damages from the company for deliberately misleading them, by downplaying a clinically established connection between Vioxx and an increased risk of heart attack. This in turn caused shareholders to pay artificially high prices for Merck stock—a situation they want rectified.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case by late June 2010. Merck deserves to go down; let’s all recognize these stalling tactics for what they are.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Toyota Recalls 4 Million Vehicles to Fix Gas Pedals

Mike Ferrara — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:15:35 GMT

After receiving more than 100 reports of accelerators getting stuck on driver’s side floormats, causing several deaths in high-speed crashes, Toyota is recalling more than 4 million vehicles to repair or replace their gas pedals.

The gas pedal recall is Toyota's largest in the U.S. and the sixth-largest ever in the U.S., according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It includes 3.8 million vehicles, including the 2007-10 model year Camry, 2005-10 Toyota Avalon, 2004-09 Prius, 2005-10 Toyota Tacoma, 2007-10 Toyota Tundra, 2007-10 Lexus ES350 and 2006-10 Lexus IS250/350. NHTSA said 4.26 million vehicles would be covered, including new cars and trucks sold since September and others manufactured since the recall was announced. -AP

According to Toyota, the gas pedals have been getting stuck simply because they are too long, and not because of any sort of electrical problem. The company is developing new shorter pedals that dealers will install in customer vehicles starting next April. Beginning in January, dealers will offer to shorten the length of customers’ gas pedals by about ¾ of an inch while they wait for replacement pedals to become available.

Toyota also plans to install brake override systems in the Camry, Avalon, and Lexus ES350, IS350, and IS20, so that if the brake and accelerator are applied at the same time, the brake will win out and stop an out-of-control car. According to Toyota, these models are at the highest risk for pedals getting stuck in floor mats.

In November, Toyota issued a statement saying NHTSA had confirmed "that no defect exists in vehicles in which the driver's floor mat is compatible with the vehicle and properly secured." But in a rare rebuke, NHTSA accused Toyota of releasing misleading information about the recall, saying removing the mats did not "correct the underlying defect." Toyota said it was not the company's intention to mislead anyone. -AP

Whether Toyota deliberately misled us or not, life-threatening safety issues like these should never arise at all. The company needs to take more care in the development and safety testing stages to prevent their products from causing unnecessary injury and death in the first place.

If you own one of these Toyota models, please contact Toyota at 800-331-4331 or the NHTSA hot line at 888-327-4236 for more information about the recall.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Wyeth to Pay $6.3 Million in Damages for Prempro Connection to Breast Cancer

Camryn Hansen — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:40:43 GMT

This week, a Philadelphia jury ruled that drug giants Wyeth and Upjohn, both owned by Pfizer, are liable for at least $6.3 million in damages because their hormone replacement therapy drugs played a significant causal role an Illinois woman’s breast cancer.

The drugs, Wyeth’s Prempro and Pharmacia & Upjohn’s Provera, are used to treat menopause symptoms including hot flashes, night sweats and mood swings. Donna Kendall, 66, took them for 11 years before having to have a double mastectomy.

In 2002, when Prempro sales were more than $2 billion, a federal study found that women who used Prempro and similar drugs had an increased risk of breast cancer.

Nearly a year ago, we learned that Wyeth paid ghostwriters to produce fraudulent articles in medical journals praising Prempro. Wyeth also kept the ghostwriters’ role in the articles a secret from the medical journal editors and readers. Disturbingly, at least one Wyeth-sponsored positive article was published after the federal study citing Prempro as a breast cancer risk.

Juries are paying attention, and this is good.

In Kendall’s case, jurors concluded Wyeth and Upjohn officials failed to adequately warn Kendall’s doctors about the drugs’ cancer risks and that failure played a role in the physicians’ decision to prescribe the drugs.

The panel also found Wyeth’s and Upjohn’s conduct in marketing and selling the drugs was hiding health risks was “wanton and reckless.” That makes the companies open to a punitive-damage award under Pennsylvania law. –Bloomberg

Since 2006, Wyeth has lost six out of nine jury verdicts. Thus far, at least 34 cases involving Prempro are set for trial, and Wyeth has settled at least five cases over hormone replacement therapy drugs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

How Safe is Your Car? IIHS Top Safety Picks for 2010

Mike Ferrara — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:25:03 GMT

Every year, the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety performance-tests the various vehicles on the market to see how each fares in accidents.

After performing high-speed front and side crash tests, a rollover test, and an evaluation of seat and head restraint protection against neck injuries in rear-impact accidents, the IIHS awards each vehicle a rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor for each test. Top Safety Picks must earn ratings of good on every single test, in addition to offering electronic stability control.

Here are the IIHS Top Safety Picks for 2010.

Small Cars

Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional ESC

Kia Soul

Nissan Cube

Subaru Impreza (except WRX)

Volkswagen Golf 4-door models

Midsize Cars

Audi A3

Chevrolet Malibu built after October 2009

Chrysler Sebring 4-door models with optional ESC

Dodge Avenger with optional ESC

Mercedes C class

Subaru Legacy

Subaru Outback

Volkswagen Jetta sedan

Volkswagen Passat sedan

Volvo C30

Large Cars

Buick LaCrosse

Ford Taurus

Lincoln MKS

Volvo S80

Small SUVs

Honda Element

Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags

Subaru Forester

Volkswagen Tiguan

Midsize SUVs

Dodge Journey

Subaru Tribeca

Volvo XC60

Volvo XC90

Please visit IIHS Testing 2010 and click on the name of each car model for more information. Let's keep safe cars like these on the road.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Uninsured Trauma Patients Almost Twice as Likely to Die – We Need a System that Works

Camryn Hansen — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:56:33 GMT

Legally, it’s not supposed to matter whether emergency room patients have insurance or not. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, passed by Congress in 1986, guarantees that all people brought to the emergency room receive all the treatment they require, independent of their ability to pay.

And yet, a study just published in the Archives of Surgery found that patients lacking insurance are 80% more likely to die from traumatic injuries than those with private insurance, including commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations, and Medicaid.

Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance. –LA Times

While the researchers from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston were expecting to find some disparity in risk between insured and uninsured trauma patients, they were shocked at just how large the disparity was.

The researchers offered several possible explanations for the findings. Despite the federal law, uninsured patients often wait longer to see doctors in emergency rooms and sometimes visit ERs at several hospitals before finding one that will treat them. Other studies show that, once they're admitted, uninsured patients receive fewer services, such as CT and MRI scans, and are less likely to be transferred to a rehabilitation facility. –LA Times

Whatever the explanation, findings like this make it clear that we need to do away with a health care system that effectively makes second class citizens out of the uninsured.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.

Mike Ferrara — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:13:15 GMT

The campaign to slip widespread tort reforms into America’s health care bill is gaining momentum it doesn’t deserve because people are blithely accepting its exaggerations, distortions, and outright lies as fact.

To combat this, the American Association for Justice has just released a report called “Five Myths About Medical Negligence,” which exposes the tort reformers’ media campaign as the propaganda it really is.

Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.

Fact: It is absolutely not the case that doctor liability premiums will go down if national malpractice reforms are passed. States that have already passed caps on damages have shown that while insurance companies don’t have to pay out as much in these states, they don’t pass on the savings to doctors by lowering premiums. In 2009, premiums in capped states were actually more than $1,000 higher per year, on average, than premiums in states with no caps.

Tort reforms simply don’t translate to insurance price reductions for anybody—doctor or patient. The idea that malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system while wasting American taxpayers’ money and driving doctors out of business is absolutely baseless. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #4: Malpractice Claims Drive up Doctors’ Premiums.

Mike Ferrara — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:31:27 GMT

Myth #4: Malpractice Claims Drive up Doctors’ Premiums.

Fact: Malpractice claims actually don’t have that much to do with the premiums doctors are paying. When Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR) conducted a study of the relationship between malpractice payouts and doctor premiums, it found that while doctor premiums have increased astronomically in the past few years, there has been no “explosion” in lawsuits, jury awards or legal fees to justify such an increase.

Rather, doctor premiums have been driven up by the economic situation of the insurance industry. When insurance company profits are suffering from declining interest rates and investments, they make up for it by charging more in premiums. This, and not malpractice lawsuits, is the reason doctor premiums have gone up so dramatically in recent years. (And by the way, according to a previous AAJ report, malpractice insurers earn more than 99% of Fortune 500 companies.)

The idea that malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system while wasting American taxpayers’ money and driving doctors out of business is simply bogus. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.

Mike Ferrara — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:55:47 GMT

Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.

Fact: No they’re not. Compelling data from the American Medical Association shows that the number of practicing physicians in the U.S. has been steadily increasing ever since the 1960s—faster, moreover, than the population. While tort reformers will try to spin this statistic by claiming that states with no malpractice caps are driving doctors to states with malpractice caps, the truth is that doctor numbers have increased in every state except four. Which four? Alaska, Georgia, Montana and Utah, all states with malpractice caps.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.

Mike Ferrara — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:06:03 GMT

Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.

Fact: Numerous studies have shown that malpractice claims have almost zero impact on the cost of health care in the U.S. As a good example, Americans for Insurance Reform released a study over the summer week showing that in recent years, doctor premiums and medical malpractice claims have overwhelmingly dropped, while the profits of the medical malpractice insurance industry have soared. Significantly, the study concludes that placing further limits on the liability of negligent doctors and unsafe hospitals would be unjustifiable, and would put almost no dent in our country’s health care costs.

The AIR study adds that because medical malpractice premiums amount to less than 0.5% of overall health care costs, with medical malpractice claims amounting to 0.2% (yes, these are tiny decimals) of health care costs, limiting liability any more will simply not have a significant effect on these health care costs. “If Congress completely eliminated every single medical malpractice lawsuit,” it says, “including all legitimate cases, as part of health care reform, overall health care costs would hardly change, but the costs of medical error and hospital-induced injury would remain and someone else would have to pay.”

The idea that malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system while wasting American taxpayers’ time and money is simply bogus. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Myth #1: There are too many “frivolous” malpractice lawsuits.

Mike Ferrara — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:32:23 GMT

Myth #1: There are too many “frivolous” malpractice lawsuits.

Fact: The Institute of Medicine has found that 98,000 people die and hundreds of thousands more are injured in hospitals each year due to preventable medical errors. These errors cost the health care system an $29 billion a year they wouldn’t have to spend if better prevention strategies were in place.

Despite these overwhelming numbers, only one in eight people injured by medical negligence ever files a malpractice suit. Moreover, the number of malpractice suits has actually decreased by eight percent over the past ten years, and amounts to less than one percent of the whole civil docket. Of the suits that do get filed, a 2006 Harvard study found that on average, 97 percent are meritorious, with a full 80 percent involving death or serious injury. “[P]ortraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation,” the authors stated, “are overblown."

The idea that frivolous malpractice lawsuits are unduly clogging the legal system and wasting American taxpayers’ time and money is simply bogus. On the other hand, medical negligence is very real, and any responsible health care reform bill must find a way to meaningfully address issues of patient safety.

Stay tuned as the week goes on for more myths about tort reform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara