Pharmaceutical company in trouble for attempts to get doctors to prescribe drug to children

The New York Times reports that the Justice Department has filed a complaint against a pharmaceutical company for violations of FDA regulations. The charges were filed last Wednesday against the drug maker Forest Laboratories for defrauding the government of millions of dollars by illegally marketing the popular antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro for unapproved uses in children and teenagers. The drugs are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for adults. The complaint alleges that former top executives at Forest concealed for several years a clinical study that showed that the drugs were not effective in children and might even pose risks to them, including causing some to become suicidal. It also alleges that from 2001 to 2004, Forest heavily promoted results from a clinical trial it had financed that showed that the drugs were effective, without disclosing the negative study to those researchers, its own medical advisers or its sales representatives. Doctors are free to prescribe drugs to patients, including children, for whom those drugs are not approved by federal regulators. But it is illegal for companies to actively promote such uses. Under the civil charges brought against Forest, the government is seeking to recover up to three times the amount of money spent by federal programs to pay for pediatric prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro, but did not specify a figure. Prosecutors also charged that Forest paid kickbacks, in the form of baseball tickets and gift certificates to expensive restaurants, to doctors who prescribed its drugs, and provided some doctors with paid vacations. Currently, drug makers are required to disclose the results of all their clinical trials. But the issues surrounding Forest’s marketing of Celexa and Lexapro date to before those rules were in place. For the full story, click here.

Lawyer Sues Neighbor over ‘Squealing’ Chihuahuas

"A Manhattan lawyer claims in a lawsuit that two Chihuahuas owned by her neighbor in an apartment building bark so much and so loudly that her chronic back pain is worsening. Lawyer Paulette Taylor says she wakes up several mornings a week because of the “whining, barking, yapping and squealing" by the dogs, the New York Daily News reports. On those days, her back pain “increases exponentially so that she experiences agonizing, acute back pain even before standing and taking her first step of the day and finds herself unable to go back to sleep," the suit says. The suit names the neighbor who owns the dogs and management at Taylor’s apartment building in Central Park West, according to the Daily News account. Taylor claims in the complaint that she has complained to the defendants and police about the dogs, but the animals continue to bark “in a manner that is offensive, constant, continuous and incessant,” the story says." Thanks to Debra Cassens Weiss at ABA Journal.com

First complaint filed re the Continental plane crash in Buffalo

The first wrongful death lawsuit has been filed involving a passenger of the Continental Connection commuter airplane that crashed on Feb. 12 in upstate New York, killing 50 people. Full story here. Over in my Professional Responsibility blog I have a couple of posts - and a number of links - on issues related to the solicitation of clients by law firms after the crash. See here and here.

Tobacco industry newest product

This is not a torts issue, but give it some time. I am sure eventually, somehow, we'll be talking about it in this context. Jonathan Turley's blog reports today that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co's latest innovation is chewable tobacco that looks like candy. Orbs Dissolvable Tobacco is being test marketed in Portland and looks like a box of mints but has more nicotine than a cigarette. The American Cancer Society has denounced the product, but R.J. Reynolds insists that it has a warning label to discourage the use by children. In his characteristic style Prof. Turley adds he is "personally looking forward to the Nicotine Jawbreaker and the Tobacco Sucker." For the full story, click here and here. Here is a photo of the packaging in question. Note the little tablet, which looks like mint:

Top torts stories of the past week

Click here for a list of links to the most interesting stories of the week ending Feb 27, 2009. Thanks to TortsProf Blog for the information.

Tort Reform Bill in Oklahoma

H.B. 1603 passed the Oklahoma House Judiciary Committee and now moves to the full House. The bill would "cap non-economic damages; require an expert witness for pre-certification of a lawsuit; and eliminate joint and several liability, among other reforms." More from Insurance Journal. (Thanks to the TortsProf Blog for this information.)

Like all tort reform bills, the goal is both to make it more difficult for plaintiff to bring claims and to reduce the amount they can get as compensation for their injuries. The provision requiring "pre-certification" will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims; the partial elimination of the collateral bar rule and the total elimination of joint and several liability will allow a defendant to avoid paying the total value of the damages they caused. A bill with similar provisions was declared unconstitutional in Illinois a long time ago, and a bill with caps on damages in medical malpractice cases was declared unconstitutional in Georgia just a few days ago. See here.

Complex litigation plan is set for 9/11 respiratory damages claims

Plaintiffs lawyers and New York City are now ready to follow a road map a federal judge hopes will result in settlements in the complicated process of determining liability for respiratory damage allegedly suffered by thousands of workers who participated in the cleanup of the World Trade Center site. A total of 225 of the most severe cases have been selected by two special masters appointed by Southern District of New York Judge Alvin Hellerstein in the litigation brought by more than 9,000 plaintiffs. Of that group of 225, six cases will soon be selected for what are formally scheduled to be trials but are really a path toward settlement. Two of those sample cases will be selected by New York City, its contractors and other defendants; two more will be selected by attorneys for those who claim injury from the cleanup of toxic materials; and another two will be selected by the judge himself. For the full story go here.

Oregon increases damages limits in cases vs the government

About a month ago I reported that Oregon was debating placing a cap on damages in torts cases. Surprisingly, today the TortsProf Blog reports that the Oregon Senate has passed a bill that would substantially increase liability tort limits in cases against the government. According to the report, "[c]urrently, liability against a government agency is capped at $200,000. The new bill raises the cap and sets up a two-tier system depending on whether the suit is against the state or a local government. As LegalNewsline reports, for claims against state government, the bill increases "the liability cap $100,000 a year to a maximum of $1.5 million by 2015 for individual claims against state government. The plan would increase the cap to $3 million for all claims from a single incident." The Oregonian also has more." Thanks to TortsProf Blog for the information.

Wisconsin Parents Sue Over "Time-Out" to Middle School Student

Jonathan Turley reports today that the parents of a student at Greenfield Middle School in Brookfield, Wisconsin have filed a $50,000 calim against the school for false imprisonment and battery because the school gave their daughter a “time out.” The full story is available here. Maybe I should be worried. If this claim is recognized, I am going to have to make sure we have "parental immunity"!

Comment on "libel tourism"

The Consumer Law & Policy Blog posted today a long comment on the issue of libel tourism. The first and last paragraphs are reproduced below. For the full story, go here. "A currently developing situation represents a new low for “libel tourism” – the practice of bringing libel claims against United States defendants in foreign courts where the First Amendment and other provisions of US law that protect free speech are not recognized. The plaintiff's objective is to suppress speech by obtaining a judgment abroad and then claiming that international principles of comity require that the judgment be recognized – subject to a possible defense that enforcing the judgment would violate public policy – or at least to intimidate other speakers that might be tempted to engage in similar criticism. . . . . The challenge of libel tourism has begun to receive a legislative response, ensuring protection from abusive foreign litigation against speech without having to rely on case-by-case recognition of the significant public policies protecting free speech. In the past year, statutes have been enacted in New York, CPLR 5204(b)(8), and Illinois, 735 ILCS 5/12 621(b)(7) declaring that foreign defamation judgments from jurisdictions that do not uphold American free speech values are unenforceable as against public policy. The House of Representatives also passed such a bill last year, although the Senate took no action on similar legislation proposed by Senators Specter and Lieberman. As Congress begins to consider such bills in the coming year, it should include protection for the immunity of the hosts of allegedly defamatory web sites, because interests abroad that are hostile to free speech can easily suppress opinions they do not like without ever suing the actual speakers, simply by intimidating the companies that host that speech online."