A woman who developed breast cancer after taking combination hormone therapy drugs including Premarin, Provera and Prempro for 15 years won a $5 million award against drug companies Wyeth and Upjohn this month.
Product liability plaintiffs should have been permitted to introduce expert testimony linking the short-term use of Prempro to a risk of breast cancer, the 8th Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
Drug maker Pfizer has set aside an additional $330 million to cover its liability for hormone-replacement therapy drugs like Prempro, Premarin and Provera, indicating in a regulatory filing that total payouts for those claims will probably approach $1.2 billion.
A 65-year-old elementary school principal has won a $4 million verdict in Connecticut federal court against the maker of the menopause drug Prempro for causing her breast cancer.
A product liability plaintiff could not show that the alleged failure of pharmaceutical companies to warn about the dangers of their hormone therapy drugs was the proximate cause of her breast cancer, a U.S. District Court in South Carolina has ruled in granting summary judgment.
Drug maker Pfizer and its affiliates have settled nearly half of the product liability claims involving the hormone-replacement therapy drugs Prempro, Premarin and Provera, according to a regulatory filing.
A treating physician could not testify as an expert in a product liability lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff’s breast cancer was caused by her ingestion of hormone replacement therapy drugs, a U.S. District Court in West Virginia has ruled.
Published: January 4, 2011
Tags: Accutane, Allergan, antidepressant, Avandia, AztraZeneca, Botox, Botox litigation, Department of Justice, DOJ, epilepsy, failure to warn, GlaxoSmithKline, heart attack, hormone replacement therapy, hormone replacement therapy litigation, Johnson & Johnson, Levaquin, Neurontin, Paxil, Pfizer, Premarin, Prempro, Provera, Roche, Seroquel, Wyeth
Much like 2009, 2010 was a busy year for prescription drug suits.
Consumers must show detrimental reliance in order to hold a drug manufacturer liable for misleading statements in its marketing of hormone replacement therapy drugs, West Virginia’s highest court has ruled.