Re: Re: Pharma sued by 23,600 persons over 30 years NO case went to trial !

[Guest guest]

I have seen lawyers do the right thing and it has

been truly amazing, but when they do the wrong thing they are

truly contemptible. Society could use some sort of ethical meter

for lawyers, doctors, government representatives......we are dying

for the lack of it.

Instead of the contempt they deserve they make out like bandits

and then there is still no justice.

On 1/24/2011 4:52 PM, jeremy9282 wrote:

Well this one appears to be listed for a few weeks time Jim.

GSK is taking Harvey & his 300 clients to the wire.

Seems he dumped 9700 clients a long the way & GSK say the

remaining case has no merit.

Case details - & Ors v

GlaxoKline

A group action against

GlaxoKline UK where claimants are alleged to have suffered

withdrawal effects when reducing, discontinuing or attempting to

discontinue use of the anti-depressant Seroxat, and that such

effects amount to personal injury.

Claimant lawyers:

Hugh partner partner Mark Harvey instructed 7 Bedford

Row's Simeon Maskrey QC and n s.

Defendant lawyers:

Addleshaw Goddard partner Kelleher instructed

Chambers' Gibson QC, Prashant Popat QC and

Kinnier to represent GlaxoKline UK.

Hearing date: February for 12-14

weeks.

Judge and court: Mr Justice MacKay;

Queen's Bench Division

> >

> >

> > Pharma sued by 23,600 persons over 30 years NO case

went to

> > trial !

> >

<http://bobfiddaman.blogspot.com/2011/01/pharma-sued-by-23600-persons-over-30.html>

> >

> >

> > (The only winners, it seems, are the fat cat lawyers)

> >

> >

<http://www.hughjames.com/images/THURSDAY008_m.JPG>

> >

> >

> >

> > here is an Atypical fat cat

> > but there are many others

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > */"/*

> > */In a succession of major English cases from the mid

1970's, a total

> > of around 23,600 claimants brought claims in a

succession of

> > multiparty claims against manufacturers involving DTP

vaccine, Opren,

> > Myodil contrast media, benzodiazepine tranqullizers

and the Norplant

> > subcutaneous contraceptive (Hodges, 1999). However, no

case proceeded

> > as far as a final trial on liability. The failure of

the DTP vaccine,

> > tranquillizer and Norplant litigation in the UK can be

contrasted with

> > the fact that the manufacturers settled similar claims

in the USA at

> > enormous cost in order to avoid even greater costs of

years of

> > litigation. In 2000, a case was heard relating to the

failure of a

> > condom resulting in pregnancy, but the judge held that

the defendant's

> > in the case had never claimed that a condom was 100%

effective, and

> > therefore the claim failed/*^. "

> >

> > ^1 In March 2001, the first ever successful UK

product-related class

> > action (

> >

> > ^source - http://www.ippa.ws/IPPC1/BOOK/Chapter_15.pdf

/A v /National

> > Blood Authority [2001] 3 All E.R. 289) under the

Consumer Protection

> > Act strict liability was decided, when six test cases

(representing a

> > total of 114 claimants) obtained awards of up to

£210,000 from

> > Hepatitis C infection from NHS blood transfusions.

Goldberg (2002)

> > notes the implications of this case, as it was the

first opportunity

> > of its kind in the UK to assess the problem of strict

medicinal

> > product liability in the context of a multi-party

action.2 //

> >

> >

> >

>