A California state court jury ruled late last week that Eli Lilly was not responsible for the death of a 20-year-old college student, who died from illnessess related to diabetes while taking the Zyprexa antipsychotic for mental illness. The family of Cody Tadai, who died in 2007, filed a lawsuit alleging the drugmaker hid the risks of developing diabetes, according toBloomberg News.
This was the first lawsuit to go to trial over the Zyprexa antipsychotic and claims that Lilly failed to sufficiently warn the pill may lead to diabetes. Lilly, you may recall, two years ago agreed to plead guilty and pay $1.4 billion in fines, including a $515 million penalty for a misdemeanor criminal charge, for off-label promotion.
Overall, Lilly has paid nearly $2.9 billion to resolve marketing claims, including $245 million to 13 states and about $1.2 billion to settle some 31,000 lawsuits filed by patients. The drugmaker still faces about 40 Zyprexa suits that include claims from about 110 former users of the drug, according to a recent filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (read page 19 here).
In the Tadai case, the Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Lilly adequately warned doctors and patients about Zyprexa risks and did not conceal info about side effects from the student’s doctors, according to the verdict form in the case, Bloomberg writes. His family alleged Lilly withheld info about side effects such as diabetes and weight gain, and encouraged off-label usage.
Their lawyers also argued Lilly trained its sales force to “neutralize” any questions or concerns about links to diabetes or weight gain. Randy Tadai, the student’s father, told Bloomberg the family filed the lawsuit to highlight the dangers associated with Zyprexa and, while he was disappointed with the verdict, the family would “have to accept the decision of the court.”
Lilly lawyers argued Tadai’s family had a history of diabetes and Zyprexa did not play a role in how the student developed the disease, Bloomberg writes, adding that they also sought to convince the jury the drugmaker properly warned about diabetes risks in 2003, the year Tadai began taking the pill.
gavel thx to walknboston on flickr
6 Comments
I'm trying to figure out how much this decision was argued over timing, causality, or both (and more).
The big DOJ bust for off-label Zyprexa promo (yes, different if connected issue) covered the period 1999-2003 even though it didn't come down until 2009.
Wondering if the argument was made that, at least by 2007, all relevant safety info related to Zyprexa was easily accessible by docs.
I was given Zyprexa 1996-2000 actually took it as an experimental drug 6 months before FDA approval 96. Have all my records and so does Lilly. January 2000 I got a sudden onset A1c of a whopping 14.9. No question it was Zyprexa that ruined my pancreatic beta cells.
The warning black label did not go on till 2003
I am classic case for compensation never signed on with the original 8,000 claimants because payout too small. Instead I do blog and commentary have made over 150,000 pages exposing the danger of Zyprexa. -- Daniel Haszard Zyprexa victim activist FMI zyprexa-victims(dot)com
In the first article about diabetes and death caused by Zyprexa (Baltimore Sun, April 2003), in which it was stated that Japan and the UK had required Lilly to place warnings on Zyprexa for this in their countries, Lilly denied that there was any evidence that this was true. It wasn't until late in 2003 that the FDA made Lilly and all the other atypical makers (even theugh the evidence was only for Zyprexa) place the same wording on the label for this. Once again, Lilly has slithered under the bar with this ruling, given that thousands upon thousands of people were paid off by Lilly in lawsuits for diabetes and death caused by this drug.
Daniel, if you are interested and the records are available, you may be entitled to compensation for injuries based on the language of the informed consent you signed as a clinical trial participant. Check your copy of the consent and see if it has a section on Compensation for Injuries. All consents have such a section, although the language in the clause is not uniform.
Eli Lilly is just one of many criminal drug companies.