Re: Pharma sued by 23,600 persons over 30 yearsNO case went to trial !

[Guest guest]

The only people who can damage pharma companies financially are the states' AG's office. They are the ones getting billions because they can claim Medicare/Medicaid fraud.It is futile for individuals or even those granted class action status to sue, based on our experience and reading of so many unfair judgments. T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&TFrom: Jim <mofunnow@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:44:39 -0600<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Pharma sued by 23,600 persons over 30 yearsNO case went to trial ! Same here in the states, almost always settles,never admit wrongdoing, drugs still on market despite presentedstudies being misinforming and regulatory bodies being lied to.The lawyers can hurt the companies a bit, since greed is the drugcompanies apparent true manifesto.On 1/24/2011 11:45 AM, jeremy9282 wrote:Pharma sued by 23,600 persons over 30 yearsNO case went to trial ! (The only winners, it seems, arethe fat cat lawyers)here is an Atypical fat cat but there are many others"In a succession of major English cases from themid 1970's, a total of around 23,600 claimants broughtclaims in a succession of multiparty claims againstmanufacturers involving DTP vaccine, Opren, Myodilcontrast media, benzodiazepine tranqullizers and theNorplant subcutaneous contraceptive (Hodges, 1999).However, no case proceeded as far as a final trial onliability. The failure of the DTP vaccine, tranquillizerand Norplant litigation in the UK can be contrasted withthe fact that the manufacturers settled similar claimsin the USA at enormous cost in order to avoid evengreater costs of years of litigation. In 2000, a casewas heard relating to the failure of a condom resultingin pregnancy, but the judge held that the defendant's inthe case had never claimed that a condom was 100%effective, and therefore the claim failed."1 In March 2001, the first ever successful UKproduct-related class action (source - http://www.ippa.ws/IPPC1/BOOK/Chapter_15.pdfA v NationalBlood Authority [2001] 3 All E.R. 289) under the ConsumerProtection Act strict liability was decided, when sixtest cases (representing a total of 114 claimants)obtained awards of up to £210,000 from Hepatitis Cinfection from NHS blood transfusions. Goldberg (2002)notes the implications of this case, as it was the firstopportunity of its kind in the UK to assess the problemof strict medicinal product liability in the context ofa multi-party action.2

[Guest guest]

In the UK it seems the only winners here are the class action lawyers.

In the (failed) benzo litigation the lawyers take was so large that it

caused the collapse of the old legal aid board. Such futile actions had

repurcussions in access to justice in all areas in UK

I think something like 40 - 50 million £££££££'s were blown of fees

and pre suit reports and the case never saw the inside of a court room

> >

> >

> > 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-ov\

er-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 //

> >

> >

> >

>