Before becoming LegalReader's Editor-in-Chief, Jay W. Belle Isle worked as a freelance copywriter with clients on four continents. Jay has a degree in Business Administration from Cleary University and a Juris Doctor from Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Jay has also worked as a contracts administrator for a DOD contractor specializing in vehicle armor.
Our friends at ClassAction.com recently published an excellent piece on the “profits before patients” paradigm and its impact on the opioid crisis in America, explaining steps Big Pharma takes to make mega-profits from unsuspecting patients. They have kindly offered to share an excerpt for our readers. A link to the complete article on their site appears at the end of this piece.
The latest development in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) over Ethicon’s Physiomesh for hernia treatment involves the parties squaring off over who – if anyone – is allowed to have ex parte contact with the plaintiffs’ treating physicians. What, exactly, is ex parte contact and why are the parties fighting over it?
In early October, a Chicago federal jury reached a verdict in favor of Mr. Jeffrey Konrad in his suit against Big Pharma giant AbbVie, agreeing with Mr. Konrad’s allegations that the company’s testosterone replacement drug, AndroGel, caused his heart attack. The jury gave Mr. Konrad $140,000.00 in compensatory damages and $140M in punitive damages. AbbVie promised to appeal, and it made good on that promise just a few days ago.
Residents of Dickinson, Texas recently got a bit of an unpleasant surprise in the form of a bizarre clause in the city’s Hurricane Harvey Repair Grant Application and Agreement.
The latest happenings in the ongoing talc-ovarian cancer suits against Johnson & Johnson aren’t good news, particularly for two plaintiffs whose cases were already decided. The corporation recently succeeded in its efforts to have two of the larger verdicts (one of which is the largest verdict) reversed.
You pay your premiums faithfully, are never late, and bought into the promises made by your home insurer that you would be protected in the event of an emergency. Along comes a hurricane of epic proportions – Harvey had 130mph sustained winds, an enormous storm surge, and dropped several feet of rain in a relatively short period – and you lose everything. “But,” you think, “at least I’m insured. Everything will be fine.” Sadly, that’s not proving to be the case for many people. Delayed insurance claims are the new storm slamming Texans.
I was recently contacted by a fellow writer about a piece published on the potential Bayer-Monsanto merger. It’s such an excellent, and in-depth, look at the issue that I asked him if I could publish an excerpt here. He graciously agreed. This is a potential merger that has far-reaching and negative effects for us all. As the piece says, the Bayer-Monsanto merger is truly a marriage made in Hell.
Earlier this month, Dutch pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk settled eight suits, brought by the Department of Justice, claiming that the company violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the False Claims Act (FCA). The DOJ asserted that the company had misbranded its popular Type II diabetes drug, Victoza, by failing to comply with an “FDA-mandated Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).” The company agreed to the settlement of $58.65M. That amount includes disgorgement (repayment of illegally-earned profits) of $12.15M for the FDCA violations, which the DOJ claimed took place from 2010 to 2012, and a $46.5M payment for the FCA violations. The latter, according to the DOJ, took place from 2010 to 2014.
Bayer, the manufacturer of the controversial “permanent” birth control device Essure, announced on September 18 that it is discontinuing all sales and marketing efforts of the device in all European markets. Citing “commercial reasons,” the company continued to stand by the safety and efficacy of the device despite tens of thousands of reported injuries. The Essure device will remain on the market in the U.S. For now.
Ella Ebaugh, a resident of Pennsylvania, knows about pain. She was diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in 2005. In 2007, Mrs. Ebaugh did as many women: she trusted that pelvic mesh implants would fix the problem. Also like many women, Mrs. Ebaugh discovered that the mesh devices – these made by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon division – caused more problems than they solved. Problems that ultimately lead Mrs. Ebaugh to sue J&J. Earlier this month, a jury in Philadelphia awarded Mrs. Ebaugh $57.1M.