Network Affiliates

June 2009
Levin Papantonio Client Obtains Jury Award in Tobacco Case
Three Levin Papantonio attorneys recently received a $30 million verdict in one of many Florida tobacco lawsuits. A Florida jury ordered R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. to hand over $5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to a Florida widow whose husband died of lung cancer in 1995. The Martin case is one of the first to be tried after the 2006 ruling of the Florida Supreme Court in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. that de-certified a class action against the tobacco companies.
Mr. Martin started smoking in the mid-1940s before there were warnings on cigarettes. "We walked into the courtroom saying that Mr. Martin shared some of the blame for his inability to stop smoking," Levin Papantonio attorney Bobby Loehr said after the trial concluded. "R.J. Reynolds claimed that they were blameless." In deciding the case, the jury ruled that the deceased smoker Benny Martin was 34% responsible for the lung cancer damages and that the tobacco company was 66% at fault. They further found that the company’s conspiracy to conceal information about cigarettes was a legal cause of the death of Benny Martin. Despite the fault placed on Mr. Martin, under Florida law, there is no reduction of the award when fault is based upon intentional conduct, such as a conspiracy.
R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies conspired to make their products more addictive to customers and withheld information from the public about the dangers of smoking. “The jury here saw three weeks of evidence of exactly what the tobacco company tried to conceal,” Matt Schultz said. “This punitive award will hopefully deter these kinds of corporate activities in the future.” For more articles on the trial go to http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009906020310 or contact Matt Schultz MSchultz@levinlaw.com, Bobby Loehr BLoehr@levinlaw.com or Rachael Gilmer RGilmer@levinlaw.com.
Fosamax MDL
In Fosamax osteonecrosis of the jaw project, the MDL judge has set a Daubert hearing for July 9 and 10, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court will hear arguments pertaining to Merck's challenge to the PSC's general causation experts as well as pertaining to the PSC's challenge to the scope and duration of Fosamax's clinical efficacy. The first trial in Fosamax is set in the MDL, beginning August 11. Levin Papantonio shareholder Tim O'Brien is lead counsel for the PSC and is also lead trial counsel for the August 11 trial. You can contact Tim O'Brien at TObrien@levinlaw.com with any questions you may have regarding the Fosamax MDL Litigation.
Chinese Drywall
On Wednesday May 27, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard oral arguments on MDL 2047: In re: Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation. The JMPL, convened in Louisville, Kentucky, heard arguments on the transfer of the litigation to the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Defective Chinese drywall, used in new home construction during the U.S. construction boom from approximately 2004 to 2006, is causing widespread problems for homeowners whose homes were built or remodeled with the defective material. It is suspected that Chinese drywall was used in 41 states, although the majority of the problems are surfacing in the Southeastern United States.
Levin, Papantonio is currently pursuing cases on behalf of homeowners whose homes have been damaged by defective Chinese Drywall. For more information please contact Amanda Slevinski at ASlevinski@levinlaw.com.
Avandia
Avandia is the second in a relatively new class of oral anti-diabetes drugs referred to as "glitazones." The first, Rezulin, was recalled in 2000 after causing numerous liver failure deaths, while the third, Actos, seems to be more innocuous than its two predecessors. More and more physicians are switching their patients from Avandia to Actos or other, safer diabetes medications. However, Avandia, or "Rosiglitazone," has been on the market since 1999, and some physicians continue to prescribe it even today in spite of numerous studies and meta-analyses from highly-respected institutions demonstrating unmistakably that it causes a substantially increased risk--in diabetics--of congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction. Though numerous authorities have called for it to be removed from the market, Glaxo Smithkline has refused to do so, even after its sales have plummeted and the American Diabetes Association says it should not be used. GSK continues to claim publicly that Avandia is safe, but internal emails produced in discovery show that company officials concealed data from studies showing they were concerned that Avandia was dangerous even as they were pushing for FDA approval. Without question, GSK is concerned about the effect of a recall on litigation and the filing of new claims, so they publicly stand by Avandia, even though most scientists favor use of other medications for diabetes.
There are several thousand cases filed in state and federal court in Philadelphia and elsewhere, and more cases are being filed every day. Time is of the essence on these claims, however, as the defendants have taken the position in open court that the statute of limitations began to run at least by May 2007, when the New England Journal published Dr. Stephen Nissen's meta-analysis of 42 studies concluded that diabetics taking Avandia stand a 43% higher chance of suffering heart attacks than diabetics not taking Avandia. While a black box warning added in November 2007 has persuaded some doctors not to use Avandia, because it has little demonstrated efficacy in long-term trials and yet clearly increases cardiovascular disease risks, we maintain that Avandia should be banned outright. Levin-Papantonio continues to investigate claims involving major cardiac injury, macular edema, and broken bones. Please contact Ben Gordon at BGordon@levinlaw.com with any questions regarding the Avandia Litigation.
Gadolinium
Staying true to form, the Gadolinium litigation continues to truck forward at an aggressive pace. Case-specific discovery in the Trial Pool cases for the MDL (Northern District of Ohio) is in full swing with depositions being set nearly every day. With the defendants continuing to fight Product Identification at every corner and expert reports due soon, everyone involved in the litigation has been putting forth impressive efforts to keep this litigation on track and moving forward. Contact Lea Morris at Lea.Morris@levinlaw.com with any questions in regards to Gadolinium.
Calaxo
Smith and Nephew introduced the "Calaxo" bioabsorbable screws for ACL knee repair surgery in early 2006, and distributed the screws to orthopedic surgeons roughly between March 2006 and August of 2007. The devices were recalled in the United Kingdom and in the United States in late August 2007, after numerous reports of adverse events involving soft tissue swelling, pain, and an "infection-like" process that can lead to multiple surgical revisions. Patients tend to get better initially, only to later have the knee start to swell and ache, causing extended periods of disability which may become permanent. While Smith and Nephew has not stated publicly the reason for the recall or the source of the problem, they claim to have established a panel of experts to study the problem. Although other companies make similar orthopedic knee screws, Smith and Nephew's addition of materials aimed at hastening the bioabsorbtion process may be to blame in the failure of these screws. Levin-Papantonio represents dozens of victims with Calaxo knee screws and are at the forefront of this litigation. Please contact Ben Gordon at BGordon@levinlaw.com with any questions regarding the Calaxo Litigation.
Medtronic Intrathecal Infusion Pump Recall
Levin Papantonio is investigating cases involving Medtronic's Intrathecal Infusion Pump. These implantable infusion pumps are used to infuse opioids, baclofen, or chemotherapy drugs into the intrathecal space in the spine. In 2008, certain models of this pump were recalled by the manufacturer because of reports of inflammatory mass (granuloma) formations at the tip of the intrathecal catheters. Development of a mass can lead to severe neurologic injuries. The risk of developing such a mass appears to increase over time, and with higher doses of certain opioids. For more information about these cases, please contact Pete Kaufman at (850) 435-7107 or pkaufman@levinlaw.com.