Jury Rejects Claims Against Rezulin
After just two days of deliberations, a Los Angeles jury unanimously rejected claims Thursday that the diabetes drug Rezulin -- taken off the market in March 2000 because of safety concerns -- contributed to the deaths or illness of three people.
The oval, tan pill, which generated $2.1 billion in sales, was used by 2 million people and linked to 63 confirmed fatalities during the more than two years it was available to the public.
Since then, the pill’s manufacturer, Warner-Lambert Co., has been hit with more than 35,000 lawsuits nationwide.
The Times has reported that Food and Drug Administration officials disregarded warnings while approving Rezulin and keeping it on the market despite reports of liver failures and deaths.
In the Los Angeles case, the jury found that the plaintiffs’ attorney, Thomas Girardi, proved that Rezulin can cause liver injury, but failed to “prove that Rezulin was a substantial factor in” the deaths of Lupe Contreras and Manuel Cervantes, or the illness of Leonard Clinkenbeard.
The jury reached a verdict before having to consider other issues raised in the litigation, such as whether Warner-Lambert either concealed or failed to adequately warn doctors about the risk of liver damage to patients.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carl J. West presided over the seven-week trial. Attorney Pierce O’Donnell, who defended the drug company, could not be reached for comment.
“We always thought we had a very strong case, and the jury obviously agreed,” said Bryant Haskins, a spokesman for Pfizer Inc., which acquired Warner-Lambert three months after Rezulin was pulled from the shelves. “We are very pleased with the verdict.”
Juries have so far reached mixed results in Rezulin cases. A Houston jury awarded a $43-million verdict in December 2001 to a 63-year-old woman who said the drug destroyed her liver.
A month later, a jury in Edinburg, Texas, ordered the drug maker to pay $25 million to the family of an 80-year-old woman who died after taking Rezulin for three months.
Meanwhile, other juries in Texas and Maryland have made findings similar to the one Thursday in Los Angeles: that the drug did not contribute to the deaths of its users.
In response to the litigation, Pfizer in January announced that it would set aside $975 million before taxes to cover personal-injury claims arising from the drug.
At the same time, company officials vowed to “continue to defend vigorously against unmeritorious claims.”
Haskins said most people who took Rezulin to control their diabetes benefited from its use. He said no prescription drugs are free from risks but that Rezulin’s packaging carried a liver-damage warning to consumers.
Despite defeat, Girardi was optimistic about the future of Rezulin litigation in Los Angeles County. He said the jury’s ruling that Rezulin causes liver injuries will “help us enormously” with the hundreds of other cases pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
He downplayed the importance of this first local Rezulin trial, saying that Clinkenbeard’s injuries were so minimal that the lawsuit asked for only $20,000 in actual damages. “We don’t quarrel with the decision,” Girardi said. “I think I would have probably decided the same way myself.”
