“NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION MDL No. 2804”

Transfer Motion Accepted by JPML On September 29, 2017

By Mark A. York

Mass Tort Nexus (September 29, 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  Motion to Transfer and Consolidate MDL No. 2804, now known as “National Prescription Opiate Litigation”, was accepted by the JPML on September 29, 2017 see “JPML Motion to Consolidate Prescription Opiate Litigation as MDL 2804”, with the apparent motion hearing date being November 30, 2017 at the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation hearings in St Louis, Missouri. The consolidation motion was filed by Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Dietzler, based in Charleston, WV. The filing is the long expected result of the ongoing “Opioid Crisis” which has seemingly overtaken many aspects of day to day life in America, with a particular emphasis on rural America. The many small towns and counties have seen unheard of increases in overdose deaths and 911 calls for drug overdoses, which have depleted budgets and caused ever mounting levels of grief for stricken families as well as tension in government council meetings everywhere, when attempting to address the crisis.

The consolidation filing is followed in the Mass Tort Nexus briefcase, “National Prescription Opiate Litigation MDL”,as the motion directly cites the nation’s three largest wholesalers of opiod drugs, McKesson Corporation, AmerisourceBergen Corporation and Cardinal Health, Inc. as well as naming primary drug makers Purdue Pharma, Teva, Cephalon, Janssen, Endo, Actavis and Mallinckrodt as defendants in certain actions. Opiate drug makers and their executives are now firmly in the sights of not only mass tort lawyers, but facing the full force of criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice in every state, as indictments have already been handed down in several federal venues. The MDL filing contains complaints that specifically reference RICO claims in many of the 66 federal actions cited in the motion, to be transferred into the JPML venue.

The pharmaceutical industry already faces dozens of lawsuits brought by cities, counties and states — including Ohio, Missouri and Oklahoma. Some are trying to recoup the costs incurred from the surge in emergency response from spikes in opioid-related overdoses. The strategy is reminiscent of the successful litigation brought by states and municipalities three decades ago against tobacco companies.

The opioid drug industry expanded in the 1990s in response to the medical community’s push to better treat pain and chronic pain.

A primary focus is the how and why of , millions of opioid users became addicted to opioids, or heroin, after being prescribed the medication by doctors and the apparent failure of corporate executives to address the ever mounting evidence in light of the enormous profits, year in and year out.

Many doctors, in turn, said they were assured by the drugmakers that the opioids were less addictive or even not addictive, which in the civil matters will be a point of very high contention and potentially a focus of US DOJ investigators.

Some states have obtained consent decrees and financial penalties from drug makers, including Illinois, “My investigations have shown that drug companies pressure physicians into prescribing powerful, addictive drugs without regard for the law or patients’ well-being,” said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is also party to the new investigation.

SHOTS – HEALTH NEWS

Intent On Reversing Its Opioid Epidemic, A State Limits Prescriptions

Now, many state prosecutors say they will examine whether the industry was complicit in creating the epidemic and whether it should now be responsible for helping pay for the damage caused to many communities.

Allergan said it was “working cooperatively” with the attorneys generals on their requests for information. The other companies being investigated did not immediately issue statements, and industry lobbying group PhRMA didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The number of opioid prescriptions has declined in recent years, after federal regulators placed new limits on the drugs. That reduced the amount of opioids prescribed by 18 percent in 2015, from a peak in 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, as the state attorneys general and other community leaders note, the slowdown in prescriptions has been offset by greater demand for cheaper alternatives such as heroin.

“For millions of Americans, their personal battle with opioid addiction did not start in a back alley with a tourniquet and syringe,” Schneiderman said. “They got hooked on medicine they were prescribed for pain or that they found in a medicine cabinet.”

“Governmental entities across the country are now joining together and stating “We are taking this action today because our communities and homes have been broken and families torn apart by this epidemic,” and this known danger was ignored by opioid drug makers, “This epidemic has claimed victims from all walks of life, and both the financial and emotional costs to our citizens.”

Primary allegations include “That the manufacturing companies pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to doctors that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction, while the distributors breached their legal duties to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription opioids:, which is applicable to all afflicted communities across the country.

From the extensive research by Mass Tort Nexus to date, it appears that this is just the tip of the litigation iceberg that will be brought against all levels of opiate pharmaceutical manufactures and affiliated distributors in the USA. Based on US Dept. of Justice criminal filings, the executive boardrooms are not exempt from indictments and criminal charges,  as well as the many doctors, sale and marketing professionals and others who helped facilitate the current opioid crisis, which directly results in related civil and mass tort actions against all involved.

Read More

AS EXPECTED A “NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION MDL FILING” IS ON THE JPML DOCKET

Transfer Motion Filed To Create New Opioid Rx Multidistrict Litigation

By Mark A. York

Mass Tort nexus (September 28, 2017)

A Motion to Transfer and Consolidate the “National Prescription Opiate Litigation”, was filed on September 25, 2017 see “JPML Motion to Consolidate Prescription Opiate Litigation”, with the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. An MDL number designation has not been assigned as of Thursday the 28th, but the filing and designation are under JPML review.  The motion was filed by Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Dietzler, based in Charleston, WV. The filing is the long expected result of the ongoing “Opioid Crisis” which has seemingly overtaken many aspects of day to day life in America, with a particular emphasis on rural America. The many small towns and counties have seen unheard of increases in overdose deaths and 911 calls for drug overdoses, which have depleted budgets and caused ever mounting levels of grief for stricken families as well as tension in government council meetings everywhere, when attempting to address the crisis.

The consolidation filing is followed in the Mass Tort Nexus briefcase, “National Prescription Opiate Litigation MDL”,as the motion directly cites the nation’s three largest wholesalers of opioId drugs, McKesson Corporation, AmerisourceBergen Corporation and Cardinal Health, Inc. as well as naming primary drug makers Purdue Pharma, Teva, Cephalon, Janssen, Endo, Actavis and Mallinckrodt as defendants in certain actions. Opiate drug makers and their executives are now firmly in the sights of not only mass tort lawyers, but facing the full force of criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice in every state, as indictments have already been handed down in several federal venues. The MDL filing contains complaints that specifically reference RICO claims in many of the 66 federal actions cited in the motion, to be transferred into the JPML venue.

STATES HAVE FILED SUIT ALREADY

The pharmaceutical industry already faces dozens of lawsuits brought by cities, counties and states — including Ohio, Missouri and Oklahoma. Some are trying to recoup the costs incurred from the surge in emergency response from spikes in opioid-related overdoses. The strategy is reminiscent of the successful litigation brought by states and municipalities three decades ago against tobacco companies.  The common understanding is that the “Opiate Rx Litigation MDL” and related lawsuits across the country, may equal or surpass the tobacco litigation in both scope and financial penalties paid by drug makers.

The opioid drug industry expanded in the 1990s in response to the medical community’s push to better treat pain and chronic pain.

A primary focus is the how and why millions of opioid users became addicted to opioids, or heroin, after being prescribed the medication by doctors and the apparent failure of corporate executives to address the ever mounting evidence in light of the enormous profits, year in and year out.

WARNINGS TO DOCTORS INADEQUATE

Many doctors, in turn, said they were assured by the drugmakers that the opioids were less addictive or even not addictive, which in the civil matters will be a point of very high contention and potentially a focus of US DOJ investigators.

Some states have obtained consent decrees and financial penalties from drug makers, including Illinois, “My investigations have shown that drug companies pressure physicians into prescribing powerful, addictive drugs without regard for the law or patients’ well-being,” said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is also party to the new investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intent On Reversing Its Opioid Epidemic, A State Limits Prescriptions

Now, many state prosecutors say they will examine whether the industry as a whole, was complicit in creating the epidemic and whether it should now be responsible for helping pay for the damage caused to many communities.

Allergan said it was “working cooperatively” with the attorneys generals on their requests for information. The other companies being investigated did not immediately issue statements, and industry lobbying group PhRMA didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The number of opioid prescriptions has declined in recent years, after federal regulators placed new limits on the drugs. That reduced the amount of opioids prescribed by 18 percent in 2015, from a peak in 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, as the state attorneys general and other community leaders note, the slowdown in prescriptions has been offset by greater demand for cheaper alternatives such as heroin, now recognized by medical industry leaders, substance abuse professionals, law enforcement and now mass tort lawyers, as a primary direct result of the massive opioid prescription writing campaign for so many years.

ADDICTIONS STARTED WITH A PRESCRIPTION

“For millions of Americans, their personal battle with opioid addiction did not start in a back alley with a tourniquet and syringe,” industry leaders are stating “They got hooked on medicine they were prescribed for pain or that they found in a medicine cabinet.”

“Governmental entities across the country are now joining together and stating “We are taking this action today because our communities and homes have been broken and families torn apart by this epidemic,” and this known danger was ignored by opioid drug makers, “This epidemic has claimed victims from all walks of life, and both the financial and emotional costs to our citizens.”

Primary allegations include “That the manufacturing companies pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to doctors that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction, while the distributors breached their legal duties to monitor, detect, investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription opioid, which is applicable to all afflicted communities across the country.

From the extensive research by Mass Tort Nexus to date, it appears that this is just the tip of the litigation iceberg that will be brought against all levels of opiate pharmaceutical manufacturers and affiliated distributors in the USA. Based on US Dept. of Justice criminal filings, the executive suites and boardrooms are not exempt from indictments and criminal charges,  as well as the many doctors, sale and marketing professionals and others who helped facilitate the current opioid crisis, which directly results in related civil and mass tort actions against all involved.

Read More

XARELTO in Philadelphia Court: Will The BMSQ “California Plavix” SCOTUS Ruling Affect Out of State Plaintiffs?

XARELTO in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas: Will The “California Plavix” Supreme Court Ruling Affect Out of State Plaintiffs?

By Mark A. York

Mass Tort Nexus (September 26, 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

Bayer, which has a headquarters in Pennsylvania, recently used a June 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision on out of state plaintiffs and court jurisdictions to dismiss dozens of lawsuits from a Missouri federal court in the “Essure” birth control litigation. It remains to be seen if Bayer will use the same strategy in other jurisdictions, like Philadelphia, where the Xarelto blood thinner cases are piling up, see XARELTO Case No. 2349 in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Briefcase.

Thousands of out-of-state plaintiffs flocked to Philadelphia recently to file lawsuits over prescription drugs, but a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision might deter that practice in the future, see  June 19, 2017 Bristol-Myers v. Superior Court of California (Plavix Jurisdiction).

The many claimants who have brought their lawsuits in Philadelphia will have to see if pharmaceutical companies like Bayer, Johnson & Johnson and others who are facing many thousands of other claims from out-of-state plaintiffs, will rely on the June 19th U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states an out-of-state plaintiff couldn’t file suit in California, due to a lack of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court justices ruled 8-1 in favor of Bristol Myers-Squibb after the company argued plaintiffs living outside California who alleged injury from BMS’s blood thinner Plavix, should not be able to sue the company in that state.

The Supreme Court ruled that, essentially the “all inclusive view of personal jurisdiction by non-resident plaintiffs has come to an end.” Plavix was not designed or made in California, and the company is headquartered in New York. The ruling may simply force thousands of pending cases across the country to be refiled in other venues, as plaintiff firms are not likely to simply withdraw the cases as massive losses, without having their day in one court or another.

A non-residents plaintiff can file suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, if the defendant is either incorporated in Pennsylvania, or has a principal place of business in Pennsylvania, which limits the legal options for Bayer, based on their corporate headquarters in the state.

Two of the biggest mass tort programs in the Philadelphia Complex Litigation Center docket are the Risperdal litigation, which is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) and allegedly causes males to develop breasts, Janssen has been hit with several large multi-million dollar verdicts in Risperdal trials. The other is Xarelto, a blood-thinner made by Bayer and Johnson & Johnson that allegedly causes uncontrolled bleeding events, and the makers failed to warn of the dangers. The Xarelto MDL 2592 in US district Court ED Louisiana . see Xarelto MDL 2592 Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase, where close to twenty thousand additional Xarelto cases are pending.

Bayer will be having a much harder time using the BMS Plavix decision to dismiss non-resident plaintiffs from the Philadelphia courtroom, given it’s headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Read More

“THE OPIOID CRISIS IN AMERICA” – How Insys Theraputics, Inc. Sold Stock And Killed Americans At The Same Time With The Help Of Doctors

A REPORT BY MASS TORT NEXUS 

by Mark A. York ( September 26, 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subsys – an Insys Therapeutics, Inc. Pharmaceutical Opioid Product

      Here’s a perfect example of how corporate greed and licensed medical providers helped create the now rampant US opioid crisis– how payments to doctors and prescribers across the country caused addictive painkillers, like “Subsys” a fentanyl based opioid, to suddenly rip through our country like a flash fire.

Insys Therapeutics,a publicly traded pharmaceutical company based in Arizona, is just one small example of what Big Pharma has been doing for the last 10 years in every city and state in the United States, often increasing corporate earnings right alongside the catastrophic opioid related death rates. For Insys Theraputics executives, the sales team and its nationwide cadre of fraudulent doctors, the results have been felony indictments and long federal prison sentences, with many more to come.

INSYS EXECUTIVES INDICTED

December 2016 saw Insys Therapeutics CEO Michael Babich and five other senior executives indicted on criminal charges for paying kickbacks and bribes to medical professionals and committing fraud against insurance companies across the country for offering a highly addictive Fentanyl prescription product “Subsys” to the masses. The Insys boardroom was indicted in the US District Court of Massachusetts, where the entire team has engaged a stable of top national law firms to defend the indictments. The “Subsys” sales teams were charged in federal indictments across the country, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Alaska and New York and the indictments will only increase as those cases proceed and “cooperating witnesses” decide that prison isn’t an option.

To compound further harsh scrutiny for Insys, it’s new CEO Saeed Motahari, moved over from Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the Oxycontin maker, who’s also a major target of criminal and civil investigations across the country by local state and federal agencies. Purdue is charged with false marketing, off-label use and ignoring the Oxycontin highly addictive dangers for years, while bringing in literally billions of dollars in profits, but Purdue’s transgressions are in Part 2 of our ongoing reports on big pharma and opioid abuses.

DOCTORS FACING NUMEROUS CHARGES

Doctors and their pain clinics, medical centers and other healthcare facilities have been indicted for fraudulent prescription writing, submitting false claims to insurance companies and numerous other federal charges and all face a minimum of 20 to 50 years in federal prison. Two of the busiest “Subsys” prescription writers in the country were Alabama doctors, John Couch and Xiulu Ruan, who earned over $40 million from Insys, and were charged with running a pill mill between 2013 and 2015, have been convicted and sentenced to 20 years each in federal prison. The top “Subsys: prescriber of all, Dr. Gavin Awerbach, of Saginaw, MI pled guilty to defrauding Medicare and Blue Cross out of $3.1 million in improper Subsys prescriptions, his criminal sentence is pending. To show the far reach of Insys and it’s corporate plans to saturate the US market with opioids, in Anchorage, Alaska Dr. Mahmood Ahmad, was charged with heading a massive Subsys prescribing operation, which he denies, but immediately surrendered his Alaska medical license which the caused the revocation of his medical license in Arkansas.

INSURANCE COMPANIES FILED SUIT

Adding weight to this tragedy is Anthem Insurance — you may recognize them as Blue Cross, one of the largest insurers in the country, now setting their sights on Insys Theraputics and it’s executives.

Anthem is suing Insys Therapeutics, the maker of the powerful opioid Subsys, for allegedly lying, cheating and defrauding its way into the medicine cabinets of Anthem clients across the country. The drug according to Anthem’s complaint, was off market prescribed to thousands of patients for years. Review shows that 54% of patients who are taking Subsys don’t really have cancer — one of the requirements for prescribing the drug, Subsys was FDA approved for “treatment of pain related to cancer” and any other use is unauthorized or off-label use.

Anthem says that’s because Insys devised an elaborate scheme to get around Anthem’s system — by falsifying records and posing as medical professionals, often with the complete knowledge and cooperation of medical doctors across the country who then received thousands of dollars in kickbacks. These doctors chose to exchange high fees from Insys in exchange for writing off-label prescriptions to patients seeking pain relief for non-life threatening conditions.

Anthem claims it ultimately paid $19 million more for Subsys than it should have. “But the harm inflicted by Insys’s conduct is not merely financial in nature,” the complaint states “Insys put Anthem’s members’ health at risk.”

THE OFF LABEL CAMPAIGN

The only people who are supposed to be taking Subsys are adult cancer patients, according to the FDA “Subsys” approval files, anything other than that is an “off label” indication. Now you can take a drug to treat something off label if you want to, but you have to get your doctor to get pass a prior authorization.

Anthem alleges that Insys has an entire unit to get around this requirement — it’s titled the “reimbursement unit.” Investigative journalists exposed this fraud initially as far back as 2015 on behalf of the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation, see Insys Therapeutics “Subsys” Off Label Rx Fraud.

The Reimbursement Unit claim was basically the company’s fraudulent  prescription approval factory, which helped participating doctors process claims (the doctors had so many they couldn’t handle them all). The unit falsified records to show patients had cancer and called insurers, pretending to be patients or other medical professionals, to facilitate approval of payment for off-label treatment.

This is the Unit’s script for obtaining off-label approval (taken from the Anthem suit):

The script read: “The physician is aware that the medication is intended for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients. The physician is treating the patient for their pain (or breakthrough pain, whichever is applicable).” The script deliberately omitted the word “cancer as applied to the patient treatment under discussion.”

DO STOCKS RISE AND FALL ON INDICTMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In late 2016 the entire top level of Insys executives, including former CEO Michael Babich, and five others were indicted and charged with multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy. Since then a number of sales reps and medical practitioners have pled guilty to charges that they gave or accepted kickbacks in furtherance of the fraudulent prescription scheme. The manager of reimbursement services, Elizabeth Gurrieri, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in June. There have been numerous deaths and related overdoses attributed to the over prescribing of Subsys across the country, which to date, show most parties involved being able to avoid the scrutiny of criminal charges related to off-label marketing and prescribing. Insys has tried to re-shuffle the executive board by bringing in new members, but business as usual in the Big Pharma boardroom goes on, as they simply brought in other more experienced “opioid industry” insiders to help further the continued use of “Subsys” and purportedly the major Insys New Pharma” entry, a line of complex medical marijuana products, that may enable them to shake off the current Insys label as the United States leading “opioid abuse by boardroom design” corporation.

As part of the boardroom strategy to get doctors to prescribe Subsys, Insys spent millions paying them off through a fraudulent “speakers program” meant to educate medical professionals about the drug. The speaking engagements were a veiled attempt to cover-up the direct payment to doctors for writing prescriptions, the more prescriptions you wrote, the higher your “speaking fees” increased. There are e-mails, texts and other Insys communications from all levels of company personnel stating “if they not writing prescription, they’re off the speaking program”, this policy resulted in one Alabama sales rep being paid over $700 thousand in Subsys based Rx commissions for one year, while her base salary was $40 thousand.

“While the exact amount of those kickbacks has yet to be determined, criminal indictments of the recipients indicate that Insys paid “speaker fees” of millions, of dollars, which may result in additional criminal charges against the doctors as well as the doctors facility staff who often worked hand in hand with Insys staff.

SALES REP NATALIE REED PERHAC

In the plea, Perhacs admitted that she was hired to be the personal sales representative for one of Insys’s most important prescribers, Dr. Xiulu Ruan. Ruan is one of two Alabama doctors who picked up over $115,000 in speaker fees from 2012 to 2015, and earned in excess of $40 million in related medical earnings during the same period. Earlier this year they were sentenced to 20 years in jail each for running a “pill mill” and helping Insys sales rep Natalie Reed Perhacs sell Subsys, for which she was paid in excess of $700 thousand in commissions, see Perhac Guilty Plea in Alabama Federal Court.

Perhac Plea Excerpts:

Admision No. 78: . Perhacs admitted that her primary responsibility at Insys was to increase the volume of Subsys® prescribed by Dr. Ruan, and his partner Dr. John Patrick Couch. This… was accomplished by (1) handling prior authorizations for their patients who had been prescribed Subsys®; (2) identifying patients who had been at the same strength of Subsys® for several months and recommending that Dr. Ruan or Dr. Couch increase the patients’ prescription strength; and (3) setting up and attending paid speaker programs.

Admission No. 79:. Ms. Perhac admitted that because of her involvement in the prior authorization process, she knew that the vast majority of Dr. Ruan and Dr. Couch’s patients did not have breakthrough cancer pain.

As you can see by the Perhac admissions, numbers 78 and 79, which reflect the vast number of charges lodged against her, the federal government is cracking down on everyone involved with the “Subsys” fraud. According to confidential sources, the recent June 2017 FDA “Opioid Crisis” Conference and related strategic review of the opioid crisis, will result in many more indictments and charges against drug makers and the medical providers who’ve helped facilitate the opioid epidemic that is currently in place across the United States.

Coming in “The Opioid Crisis In America” Part 2: How Insys Therapeutics, Purdue Pharmaceuticals, Endo Health, J&J’s Janssen Pharmaceutical and other opioid manufacturers were allowed to place profits over patients for more than 15 years…

Read More

Opioid Manufacturers Break the “Don’t Kill White People Rule”

Government Inaction Turns to Obsession

The FDA, DEA, and the CDC, as well as numerous other government agencies have known for years that prescription opioids were killing people and took no significant action to confront the problem. Only after the CDC began correlating the data, that had always been at their disposal, did inaction turn into obsession and give birth to the Feds recognition of the opioid epidemic.  The word epidemic was not even in the government’s opioid lexicon, until it was discovered that opioids were killing white people at an alarming rate.

Although the correlation mentioned above is not likely to be made issue of in the “Opioid Litigation,” we found it interesting that the Feds discovery that Opioids were killing middle class, white suburban soccer moms, as well as other privileged white folks temporally coincided with the Feds sudden obsession with the problem noteworthy. Better late than never.

The Definitive Guide to the “Opioid Litigation”

Mass Tort Nexus will release the first volume of the “Definitive Guide to the Opioid Litigation” in October 2017. Contact Jenny Levine at jenny@masstortnexus.com to find out how to get a free copy of volume one. If your firm is interested in becoming involved in the Opioid Litigation, the guide should be your Bible, Koran, Torah etc. for the case.

The first volume is intended to provide plaintiff attorneys with a basic understanding of the multifaceted litigation, past, present and future. In reality, the term  “Opioid Litigation” is somewhat misleading, as it implies a far more limited scope to the “case” than is accurate.

Much attention has been given to the lawsuits filed on behalf of State, Federal and Local Governments against the makers of Opioid’s; however, these types of entity cases are only a fraction of those which can and should be filed.  Cases filed on behalf of individuals based on varied causes of actions should be far more numerous that those filed on behalf of entities. Firms of all sizes will be in a position to represent clients in the many niches that make up the “Opioid Litigation.”

  Back to the “Killing White People Rule”

“The wise do not take part in baseless conspiracy theories nor do they ignore reality regardless of the offense that may be given for its recognition. ”

John Ray

Circa 2017 🙂

 

Anyone who believes  that harming white people will not evoke action from our government far more quickly than harming non whites is ignoring history.

In the early 1930’s, the U.S. government conducted experiments on black men, which involved leading black men with Syphilis to believe they were being treated, when in fact they were being given a placebo. The government did not acknowledge or admit its actions for over 50 years. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.

This is Ancient History, Right?

More recently, one of  President Richard Nixon’s closest aides (and Watergate Co-Conspirator), years after being released from prison, admitted that Nixon created the “War on Drugs,”  in part to create an excuse to jail young black men. Every single President since Nixon has continued the war on drugs, resulting in a massive number of  black youth incarcerations, despite the fact that white people use illegal drugs at a higher rate than non whites.

 

 

The Reality 

Did the government’s realization that Opioids were killing white folks have an effect on turning inaction into obsession? Did the same factors turn an almost ignored problem into an epidemic?

The time line of the CDC getting around to correlating data, which had been at their disposal for almost 20 years, revealed a violation of the “Don’t Kill White People Rule.” The birth of the Feds obsession with the “Opioid Epidemic” would lead a wise man to conclude the two things are related.

 

Read More

ACTEMRA: Why Is Genentech Ignoring Wrongful Death, Heart Attack and Stroke Injuries?

ACTEMRA: Why Is Genentech-Roche Ignoring Ever Increasing Evidence Of Wrongful Deaths, Heart Attack and Stroke Injuries?

By Mark A. York

Mass Tort Nexus (September 26, 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many newer rheumatoid arthritis drugs have strong warnings known as black box warnings, dictated by FDA guidelines, which warn of the risk of heart attack, stroke, heart failure, lung disease, and other injuries, but Actemra warnings were not issued by the drug maker when the medication was introduced.

Actemra, a rheumatoid arthritis medication by Roche-Genentech, has now been linked to increased heart attacks, stroke and lung interstitial disease among other side effects that the maker, Genentech did not warn the public about.

Blockbuster Drug

Actemra is a humanized interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist approved for treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. It was approved in 2010 and has been prescribed to more than 760,000 patients. The drug was responsible for $1.7 billion in revenue for Genentech and Roche last year and considered a blockbuster.

Actemra Wrongful Death

Actemra has been found to be the cause of thousands of deaths and critical illnesses, according to recent reports, it’s now documented that hundreds of patients taking the RA drug died from cardiovascular and pulmonary complications – medical issues not usually known to be  associated with the drug. According to the investigation, Actemra did not carry warning labels about the possible side effects, unlike many competing RA drugs. Stat said it investigated more than 500,000 side effect reports for RA drugs and “found clear evidence” that the risks of the side effects, such as heart attack or stroke, “were as high or higher for Actemra patients than for patients taking some competing drugs.” The difference Stat stressed is that Actemra, unlike the other RA drugs, does not carry a warning label for those side effects.

What is Actemra?

Actemra (tocilizumab) is Genentech’s newest blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug introduced by parent company Roche in 2010. It is given to patients as an intravenous infusion on a monthly basis or as a subcutaneous (under the skin) injection on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.

Actemra is a monoclonal antibody drug, approved by the FDA to treat autoimmune disorders including Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (PJIA), and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (SJIA) and was recently approved for the treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA).

In autoimmune disorders like RA, the immune system begins to attack and destroy the body’s own joint or other tissue. Actemra works to suppress the immune system by blocking interleukin-6, an immune messenger.

Actemra is Genentech’s Poster Drug?

Roche-Genentech touted their new rheumatoid arthritis drug as a “unique” breakthrough treatment, and it has since become a blockbuster drug, generating $1.6 billion in sales in 2016. Actemra competes with other popular and widely used rheumatoid arthritis drugs already on the market, including Enbrel, Humira, and Remicade.

Actemra Has Caused Serious Heart and Lung Injuries

 

Competitor RA drugs Enbrel, Humira and Remicade contained strong warnings about the heart risks and other serious health problems, but Actemra warnings did not indicate that patients may develop heart attacks, stroke, heart failure, lung disease, pancreatitis or other serious side effects.

Unfortunately, many doctors and patients were falsely led to believe that Actemra was safer, and Actemra may have actually caused these same, or even increased a greater risk of heart problems, lung complications, and other injuries.

Report Highlights Failure to Warn About Actemra Risks

In June 2017, the national publication STATNews.com released a detailed review of adverse event reports submitted to the FDA involving Actemra problems. The report raised a serious question about the failure to warn about the risk of cardiovascular problems, pancreatitis, lung disease and other injuries that have been experienced by users nationwide.

STAT News researchers examined thousands of serious adverse event reports filed with the FDA and found that 1,128 cardiac and respiratory deaths in Actemra patients had been reported to the FDA, along with thousands of other serious adverse events including heart attack, stroke, interstitial lung disease, gastrointestinal perforation and others.

STAT identified at least 13,500 reports of issues following an Actemra infusion or injection, which were submitted to the FDA between 2010 and 2016.

Actemra was linked to a higher-than-expected number of serious adverse event reports when compared with the more widely used drugs Humira, Remicade and Enbrel, which each have warnings about risks that users may face.

Actemra Serious Adverse Events

Actemra patients were more likely to have a lung disease event than patients taking Remicade and just as likely as those using Humira.

Actemra patients were 1.5 times more likely to experience a heart attack or stroke as those using Enbrel.

Will Actemra Be The Next MDL?

According to law firm and other third party investigations reviewing the Actemra drug for potential legal action against Roche and Genentech, the drug maker placed their desire for profits before patient safety by withholding important warnings about the risk of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure, lung disease, pancreatitis and other harmful side effects. When the catastrophic adverse events started to be known to the company, a boardroom decision was made to disregard the ever increasing adverse events, including those of patients dying after taking the drug. Where the Actemra investigations lead to will be known later in 2017, as determinations on taking legal action are made.

 

Read More

Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon Files Appeal in Court Ruling Where Defense Verdict in Mesh Trial Sidestepped By Judge

Plaintiffs Gets a Second Chance After Defense Trial Verdict

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In another legal slam against Johnson & Johnson and their Ethicon mesh division, plaintiff Kimberly Adkins, who’s trial in June 2017 ended in a defense verdict, has been granted new life. In post trial pleadings, the judge granted the plaintiff’s petition for a hearing on damages, after determining that the jury findings had found the mesh was designed defectively, even though they entered a defense verdict. The manufacturer of the pelvic mesh involved, Ethicon Inc. (Ethicon), has appealed the judge’s ruling, when he ruled the matter can proceed to a damages hearing. In so doing, Ms. Adkins’ lawsuit, related to a TVT Secur mesh implant surgical deveice, has been revived, at least for the time being.
The primary defendant in the surgical mesh side effects lawsuit is Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, is now facing more than 100 lawsuits in the pelvic mesh mass torts currently consolidated in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia. In what was the fifth case in the mass torts docket to go to trial, the jury on June 9 delivered for Ethicon, with what was  defendant’s first win in the 5 cases heard to date. Ethicon faces many thousands of other mesh lawsuits in federal and state courts across the country, and to date, have mounted vigorous defense in all cases.

Shortly after the defense verdict, Ms. Adkins’ trial team responded with a post-trial motion asserting that the jury’s findings were inconsistent with regard to the issue of whether or not a design defect, alleged in the surgical mesh complications lawsuit (a defect acknowledged by the jury) had been the cause of injuries to Adkins. They also stated that she was entitled to a review of the claim for damages based on the jury design defect determination.

The focus by plaintiffs is, that the jury had determined the Ethicon TVT-Secur mesh implanted in Adkins had, indeed been designed with certain defects. But in their verdict determination, by failing to identify that the product that may have caused Adkins’ injuries went against the weight of the evidence.

Adkins’ post-trial petition found merit with the judge in the Philadelphia Court, who revived the surgical mesh lawsuit in July and directed that the case be set for a hearing related to damages.

Ethicon promptly filed an appeal of the judge’s ruling with the Pennsylvania Superior Court. A spokesperson for Ethicon, Kristen Wallace, said in a statement that the trial jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas had, indeed determined that the Ethicon surgical mesh had not been the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

“We have filed an appeal to the Superior Court solely regarding the court granting a new hearing on damages, because we believe that it was not right to set aside what the jury decided,” Wallace said.

Adkins’ legal team announced it would be opposing the appeal, noting that any further delays incurred by Ethicon’s now standard legal strategy of appealing all rulings to delay final determination, will only delay the final determination of damages being awarded to the plaintiff, for the harm, and suffering experienced after she received the Ethicon TVT Secur mesh implant.

The primary plaintiff claims are that Adkins suffered extensive post-surgical injuries, when the Ethicon TVT Secur implant eroded into the plaintiff’s vaginal canal, causing Adkins severe and ongoing pain, after a portion of the surgical mesh was removed by way of follow up surgical procedure in September, 2012 – however the pain continued. even in the aftermath of the revision surgery. The plaintiff has been unable to return to the pre-implant active lifestyle she enjoyed including being unable to enjoy normal sexual relations with her partner of 20 years.

Ms. Adkins initially filed her complaint related to surgical mesh complications in July, 2013. The case is Kimberly Adkins v. Ethicon Inc. et al., Case No. 130700919, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

Read More

Plaintiffs Denied New Xarelto Bellwether Trials After Orr and Boudreaux Hearings Over Trial Losses in MDL 2592

Judge Fallon Denies Plaintiffs New Xarelto MDL 2592 Bellwether Trials After Hearings Last Week

 

 

 

 

 

Xarelto MDL 2592 Judge Eldon Fallon ruled Tuesday September 19th at the close of motion hearings, that plaintiffs Joseph Orr and Joseph Boudreaux would not be granted new trials. The plaintiffs were on the losing side in the first two bellwether trials in the Xarelto multidistrict litigation versus Janssen and Bayer over claims that the blockbuster blood thinner Xarelto caused unstoppable bleeding, see Xarelto MDL 2592 Briefcase.

TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

In denying the motions, Judge. Fallon once again stated that he “had given a lot of thought to these issues prior to trial, and I don’t shoot from the hip” on such rulings and added “I realy feel the decisions I made were, made properly” refencing the prior Orr and Boudreaux trial rulings in the hearing transcripts, see Xarelto MDL Hearing Transcript Denying New Bellwether Trials. His hearing comments weer further clarified in the court’s 9.22.2017  order where Judge Fallon outlined his prior trial rulings and the denial of new trials for Orr and Boudreaux, Judge Fallon 9.22.17 Order Denying Bellwether Retrials.

PLAINTIFF MOTIONS

The main argument raised by plaintiffs related to exclusion from trial of data determined inadmissible by the court due to materials having international based information.

The court’s decision to exclude evidence from a peer-reviewed publication was based on the false premise that the publication included foreign regulatory standards that could confuse the jury, Boudreaux counsel argued. The exclusion of this evidence influenced the jury to believe that no medical associations or peer-reviewed publications backed a diagnostic test that would determine whether emergency room patients had recently taken Xarelto, in their June filing for the retrial.

The court also should have allowed statements from foreign labels into evidence so that Boudreaux could demonstrate that foreign regulatory authorities back the prothrombin time test, Boudreaux also claimed in June. Boudreaux further argued the court’s instructions to the jury were too broad, as they indicated the companies were required to disclose to patients only tests that were FDA approved, implying the companies weren’t required to disclose a prothrombin time test that was not FDA approved.

“The fight against Xarelto is a marathon not a sprint,” per Andy Birchfield, of the Beasley Allen firm and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, who also stated “There are more than 19,000 victims who are relying on the courts for justice. We will continue fighting for the thousands of innocent victims injured or killed by Xarelto.”

Janssen issued a statement agreeing with the court ruling.
“We believe the court correctly denied plaintiff’s motions for new trials and that the verdicts returned by the juries in Orr and Boudreaux were amply supported by the evidence,” Janssen spokesperson Sarah Freeman said in a statement.

FOURTH BELLWETHER TRIAL MOVED TO 2018

In a related case development, the fourth bellwether trial of William Henry, initially set for trial in October 2017 in the US District Court ND Texas has been continued until early 2018, William Henry vs. Janssen et al Complaint. Perhaps this long break between trials signals potential settlement discussions will begin.

 

Read More

Why Has Bayer Stopped “Essure” Use In The UK and EU? Is it because women need a hysterectomy to remove the birth control device?

By Mark A. York (September 19, 2017)

Mass Tort Nexus

“Women are forced to undergo hysterectomies to remove a birth control device, Essure which is manufactured and marketed by Bayer AG, according to the British Medical Review Board”

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Essure birth control implant is used to permanently sterilize women, but is now recognized as a cause of significant side effects and complications also known in the healthcare industry as “adverse events” with the United Kingdom and European Union now restricting use of the permanent birth control device. This action has now started the FDA review in the United States of Essure and the process that Bayer stated showed the  device was tested and determined safe.

One woman in Great Britian – who later had her uterus removed – said she was left suicidal due to the “unbearable” pain, and felt she was a burden to her family.

The manufacturer Bayer says Essure is safe and the benefits outweigh the risks, which has been met with speculation as the sale of the implants in the EU was temporarily suspended this month and Bayer has asked hospitals in the UK not to use the device during this time.

“Too painful to move”

Laura Linkson, was alo fitted with the Essure device in 2013, and said the pain left her suicidal.

“The device was sold to me as a simple and easy procedure. I was told that I’d be in and out of the doctor’s office in 10 minutes and that there’d be no recovery time.

“I went from being a mum who was doing everything with her children, to a mum that was stuck in bed unable to move without pain, at some points being suicidal.

The small coil implants, which are made of nickel and polyester (PET) fibres, are used as a sterilization device to stop eggs reaching the womb.

They are inserted into the fallopian tubes where they trigger inflazmation, causing scar tissue to build up and eventually block the tubes, known as a hysteroscopic sterilization.

They can cause intense pain, and some women are thought to react badly to the nickel and plastic.

Because of the way the coils attach to the fallopian tubes, the only way to take them out is to remove a woman’s fallopian tubes and often her uterus.

In other cases the device has been found to perforate fallopian tubes and fallen out, embedding itself elsewhere in the body.

Victoria Dethier was implanted with Essure in 2012 and for three years could not work out why she felt so unwell. “There were moments where I couldn’t get out of bed I was in so much pain. It felt like I was dying, like something was killing me from the inside,” she said.

She thinks her body was reacting to the PET fibres designed to cause inflammation.

She had a hysterectomy to remove the device in 2015.  “Straight away there was a difference, I’d experienced a horrible taste in my mouth and that had gone,” she explained.as well as  I’d lost a lot of hair and that came back within 12 months, it was incredible.”

“We need acknowledgement by Bayer”

The medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA – UK) has been criticized for not responding to the increasing evidence regarding the device.

In 2015, a study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggested that women who had a hysteroscopic sterilization were 10 times more likely to need follow-up surgery than those who had a traditional sterilization – 2.4% of those surveyed, as opposed to 0.2% amongst those having a standard sterilization.

In the US more than 15,000 women have reported problems to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including pain, allergic reactions and “migration of device” that are involved in thousands of lawsuits versus Bayer Corporation and it’s German parent Bayer, AG.

Carl Heneghan, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, has criticized the regulator’s failure to act on such findings.  “How much evidence do you need to say let’s withdraw this product from the market?” he asked.

Victoria Dethier is angry that she and so many other women feel they have been ignored “No-one is listening to us, and now there are many women coming forward… we need to be acknowledged.”

Bayer Says “No long-term evidence of adverse events”

The full extent of the problem in the UK is not known.

The MHRA rejected the Victoria Derbyshire program’s Freedom of Information request asking how many women have reported problems.

The NHS does not have figures for the total number of women who have been fitted with Essure, or who have had it removed.

However, the clinical trial that led to the device being approved has been criticized for not considering the long-term effects of the implants, which Bayer has defended to this day. “The trial… only followed up women for one year, so nobody has a real understanding of what happens with this device after two years, three years, five years,” Mr Heneghan explained, and based on worldwide reporting of thousands of “adverse Events” it now seems that Bayer will have to begin the process of accepting responsibility for the Essure device medical problems claimed by the thousands of women who had the device implanted.

Some women who have experienced problems say they were not informed about the risks.

But Ben Peyton-Jones, a British consultant-obstetrician and gynecologist, said the device should still be used in some instances. Starting “I think it has a place for women who can’t have keyhole surgery and who are explained the risks very carefully,” when asked about the continued viability of Essure.

“When used correctly, according to the manufacturer’s guidance and in trained hands, it is safe.”

European Union Essure Use Suspended

The sale of Essure implants in the EU has now been suspended for further investigation and hospitals have been asked by Bayer not to use their existing stocks during this time.  This is a voluntary request and up to individual trusts to decide what to do.

The company said that independent reviews of Essure had concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks.

“Patient safety and appropriate use of Essure are the greatest priorities for Bayer, and the company fully stands behind Essure as an appropriate choice for women who desire permanent contraception,” it added in a statement. Bayer will immediately start damage control in the USA as soon as the UK-EU restrictions on Essure become known, specifically in the massive Essure Multidistrict Litigation, wher thousands of women in the United States are alleging major complications and onset of medical disability due to the Essure “adverse events” even while Bayer insisted the product was safe.

“Many women with Essure rely on this form of contraception without any side effects.”

The MHRA said it had no evidence to suggest this product was unsafe, and that the recent suspension did not suggest any increased risk to patient safety.

It said it was important for healthcare professionals to discuss the risks with patients before a procedure.

 

Read More

Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant Trial Continued Until September 18th Based on Appeal

Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Orthopaedics Latest “Pinnacle Hip Implant Trial” Continued Until September 18th Based on Fifth Circuit Appeal 

  • By Mark A. York (September 15, 2017)

  • Mass Tort Nexus

 

 

 

 

 

The latest bellwether trial in the  DePuy Pinnacle MDL 2244 (see DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant MDL 2244 Briefcase) litigation has been postponed until September 18th, based on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling, just days before the trial was to start, where they cited “grave error” by the sitting US District Court judge, in requesting a trial delay. The trial start date was September 5th, where eight plaintiffs from New York were part of the DePuy Pinnacle MDL 2255 multidistrict litigation, who are now facing jurisdictional issues based on the June 2017 SCOTUS “Plavix Ruling” that restricts jurisdiction over plaintiffs who are residents of another state, SCOTUS Plavix Jurisdictional Ruling Strikes Non-Resident CA Plaintiffs. The Plavix ruling forced thousands of non-California residents to determine if and where they can refile their claims against Bristol-Myers Squibb. DePuy Orthopaedics and it’s parent Johnson & Johnson (J&J) are asserting the Plavix ruling by stating that the New York residents are not subject to jurisdiction of the US District Court ND Texas and the trial should be stopped. This seems to fly in the face of the justification of certain tenants of the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rules of procedure, which assigned the DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant cases to the Texas court to consolidate the many thousands of cases across the country.

 J&J Wants To Avoid More Massive Trial Verdicts

J&J are simply using evry legal tool available, in an attempt to avoid another massive jury verdict like the one in the December 2016 Pinnacle Hip Implant trial, where California plaintiffs were awarded $1 billion in punitive damages, which the court subsequently reduced to $500 million on appeal. DePuy and J&J want to restrict plaintiffs in any way they can, as J&J is facing massive verdicts in other ongoing federal and state court cases related to it’s various other medical device and pharmaceutical product lines.

Appeals Panel Denies Writ of Mandamus Petition

On August 23rd, the Fifth Circuit panel denied Johnson & Johnson’s and DePuy Orthopaedics’ petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to halt the upcoming trial. However, two of the three panel members found that the judge proceeding over the consolidated DePuy Pinnacle litigation in Texas had allowed certain trials to take place before him which a “judicial error” including the one that as scheduled to begin yesterday where plaintiffs were New York residents. On September 1st, U.S. District Court Judge Ed Kinkeade of the Northern District of Texas issued an Order delaying the next DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement trial until September 18, 2017.

DePuy Pinnacle Hip Verdicts

The multidistrict litigation underway in the Northern District of Texas, DePuy Pinnacle MDL 2244, currently involves more than 9,000 hip replacement lawsuits related to the metal-on-metal version of DePuy Orthopedics’ Pinnacle hip system that utilizes the Ultamet liner. Plaintiffs claim that this configuration is defectively designed, as it sheds toxic metals into the joint surround the hip, as well as the blood stream, causing adverse local tissue reactions, metallosis, pseudotumor formation, and other complications that necessitate the need for revision surgery to replace the joint.

As of August 2017, MDL 2244 Pinnacle hip litigation has convened three bellwether trials. The first concluded in October 2014, with a verdict for DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.

In March 2016, five plaintiffs were awarded a total of $500 million at the close of the second DePuy Pinnacle trial, where the judge overseeing the case reduced the award to $151 million, in order to comply with Texas law governing punitive damages.

The largest hip implant trial verdict anywhere to date was in the DePuy MDL’s third bellwether trial which ended December 2, 2016, where six Pinnacle implant recipients, who were California residents, were awarded more than $1 billion in punitive damages, see $1 billion DePuy Hip Implant Verdict in MDL 2244, with the judgment later reduced to $543 million, by Judge Kinkeade.

DePuy Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Issues

In January 2013, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration warned that metal-on-metal hip replacements were associated with higher rates of early failure compared to those constructed from other materials.  Last year, the FDA finalized a new regulation requiring the manufacturers of two types of metal-on-metal hips to submit a premarket approval (PMA) application if they wanted to continue marketing their current devices and/or market a new implant.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics announced a recall of its ASR metal-on-metal hip replacement system, after data indicated the hips were associated with a higher-than-expected rate of premature failure.  Plaintiffs who have filed Pinnacle hip lawsuits question why the company has not taken similar action in regards to the Pinnacle/Ultamet liner combination.

In May 2013, DePuy Orthopaedics did announce that it would phase out metal-on-metal hip implants, including the device named in Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuits. According to The New York Times, the company cited slowing sales, as well as the FDA’s changing regulatory stance on all-metal hip implants, as factors in its decision.

 

Read More