Legal News

Phila. Judge Upholds Two Defense HRT Verdicts

By Brian Harris

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

A Philadelphia judge has denied the efforts of two plaintiffs to overturn defense verdicts issued in favor of drugmaker Wyeth.

In each of the cases, plaintiffs alleged that cases of invasive breast cancer were caused by taking Wyeth's hormone replacement therapy drug Prempro. The plaintiffs' theory was that for postmenopausal women with damaged breast cells and estrogen deficiency, taking HRT drugs resulted in their damaged cells becoming malignant cancerous cells.

Judge James Murray Lynn denied the motions of plaintiffs Sharon Buxton and Joy Henry for post-trial relief last week in Henry v. Wyeth and Buxton v. Wyeth.

The first Philadelphia hormone replacement therapy trial to group cases of multiple plaintiffs together for one trial was reverse bifurcated, and the plaintiffs' attorneys first had to prove to the jury the causation of the plaintiffs' breast cancer from their use of Prempro.

The jurors asked in one question for an explanation of a factual cause, and Lynn repeated his charge that Prempro would be a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred in the absence of Prempro.

The plaintiffs argued that the first question posed to the jury should not have been: "Was Wyeth's drug Prempro a factual cause in the development of plaintiff Mrs. Henry's breast cancer?" The plaintiffs wanted the first question to the jury to be: "Was Wyeth's drug Prempro a factual cause in bringing about harm to Mrs. Henry/Buxton?"

The plaintiffs said they would have won the case if their jury question had been given to the panel because "the incorrect question mis-informed the jury that plaintiffs would have to prove more than mere promotion effect by Prempro in bringing about the harm, a burden that exceeds the plaintiffs' actual burden under Pennsylvania law," according to the plaintiffs motion for post-trial relief.

The trial was held this summer over three-and-a-half weeks.

Full post as published by The Legal Intelligencer Blog on November 12, 2010 (boomark / email).