|
|
|
The Case Against Fosamax and Seroquel
Clinical trials and reports to the Food and Drug Administration have linked Fosamax, Seroquel, Ortho-Evra and Prempro with serious side effects but they are still being sold regardless. Fosamax has been associated with severe jaw decay. Doesn't that blow the mind? Seroquel causes excessive weight gain, which raises the onset of Diabetes. Next, the patient will have to add the new drugs that help to cure Diabetes. Ortho-Evra causes blood clot which causes strokes, and Prempro seems to increase breast cancer. So to cure one disease one will need ten other pills to avoid all the other diseases caused by the original medication. Wow !Who's on first??
Lawyers of the drug manufacturers claim that such prescription medicines “are as safe now as they have ever been and that the rash of suits reflects an emboldened and enriched plaintiffs' bar” (or in other words the laws are wide open for that use – and all too frequently. When one judge sees merit in consenting to a large money decision it becomes precedent).
Question” How many lawyers are ready to refuse to defend or prosecute in these cases? It would seem to many that lawyers are provoking the court cases with monotonous ads crying the needed help for those who suffer from medications.
Large plaintiff law firms aggressively advertise for clients. Smaller firms refer potential plaintiffs to large firms, because they can afford to invest in such complex cases. In which case smaller firms receive a share of the settlements in the court verdicts. Most of these cases are class action suits which gather hundreds to thousands of plaintiffs who have infinitesimal cause to hop aboard, but why not when it's offered, and to see how much they can get while sitting back and allowing the lawyers fight it out.
It seems that such suits have spurred changes in Federal Laws intended to discourage class-action litigation. But lawsuits for a single drug are tried individually with a single judge overseeing the process. Class action reform has a tendency to seem desirable by the client in spite of the atmosphere of joining the lottery because pharmaceutical lawsuits are very difficult to win. Sure, it's difficult to beat companies who's profit is in the billions. It's there because all other's purchase of medication is as costly as Mount Everest is high, which pays for suits before they happen. They can stand the onslaught of cases.
Doesn't that somehow seem like a vicious circle? Maybe it's just me.
However, as lawyers prepare for their cases they spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours interviewing witnesses and sorting through company documents. Then, at trial, the real process begins with trying to explain not only the real functions of the medication in question but the psychological status of the patient himself, and whether, or how, the drug did, or did not, have adverse effect on the plaintiff, and that his or her resultant problems were actually the cause for which they sue. The average person should it be a trial case with juries, does not understand the terms or the conditions.
Trials usually are saved for the most egregious cases while the lesser of them are usually settled for a sum of money paid by the pharmaceutical company.
Such lawsuits have, in essence, become full time specialty suits with attorneys doing no other kind of legal work. So far it's working and no one can see the end of it all, in which case attorneys may have to take refresher courses in everything legal when the bottom drops out, or the law wises up and demands a curtailment to frivolous litigation.
|
|
Like us? Then Link to Us
|
