Personal Injury Law

Reaction To Levine Case

By Jane Akre

Diana Levine Speaks 

Injuryboard, along with Alliance for Justice feature the Diana Levine story in a video on page one of Injuryboard.com.  Hear Diana Levine tell her own story in her own words. 

Levine had received Demerol for treatment of a migraine headache in 2000. Phenergan (Wyeth) was delivered to stop the nausea created by the Demerol by IV push which punctuated her artery causing gangrene and the amputation of her arm. 

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a 6-3 decision upheld Levine's victory in a lower court that the warning label was not clear on the Phenergan drug. Levine had won $6.7 million in that jury trial.

Alliance For Justice- A Victory For Consumers

    The nonprofit Washington D.C-based group, Alliance for Justice issued this statement:

"Today's victory for Diana Levine is really a victory for all American consumers," said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron.  The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, rejected the premise that drug manufacturers who fail to warn consumers of the dangers associated with their products can evade responsibility for the harm they do to Americans.  "The six justices who stood up for accountability sent a clear message that FDA approval does not necessarily grant a corporation a license to hit and run," Aron noted.

"The dangers posed to consumers do not end with the happy outcome in Wyeth v. Levine, however. Millions of other Americans who use medical devices are still left without recourse if they are injured.  This is why Congress must act swiftly to pass the Medical Device Safety Act.  The proposed bill would make clear that FDA approval to market does not preempt victims from having unsafe product lawsuits heard by juries in state courts." 

"Congress must make clear that big corporations do not have a right to 'hit and run' by causing serious health damage and then walking away from legal responsibility," concluded Aron. "Passage of the Medical Device Safety Act will protect the victims of unsafe products and ensure that manufacturers have a strong incentive to make safe products in the first place."

Online Community

Online, many consumers, the very people who could be hurt by drugs if they are not properly labeled, express some cynicism and misunderstanding about the right they have to access the courts in America. 

The primary misunderstanding is that this is a failure-to-warn case, and the label for Phenergan did not warn against the aggressive delivery of the drug through the IV push method.  

"Under no circumstances should be given by interarterial injection," says the label insert for Phenergan. Levine had argued if the IV push method was specified in the drug label, the clinician would not have delivered it into her right arm by that method. 

Levine did sue the clinic which delivered the drug by IV push.  

In the video on Injuryboard.com, Levine returns to the clinic for the first time, to discuss how the injury happened.

Wyeth- Patients Best Served by a national standard

Doug Petkus, a spokesman for Wyeth sent an e-mailed press release:    

  "Madison, N.J., March 4, 2009 - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Wyeth v. Levine is disappointing, not only for Wyeth, but for patients and public health in general.  Patients are best served by a national standard for the labeling of prescription medications - set by the medical and scientific experts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  When lay juries are permitted to second guess the experts at FDA on the benefits and risks of particular medicines, the result is uncertainty for patients and doctors alike about how and when to use prescription drugs.

            "Wyeth's labeling of Phenergan provided clear instructions and warnings about its use, including clear warnings about the very risk at issue in this case," says Bert Rein, an attorney from Wiley Rein, a Washington D.C. law firm representing Wyeth in this matter.  "The medical and scientific experts at FDA are in the best position to weigh the benefits and risks of a medicine and to assess how those benefits and risks should be described in the product's label."  

            In the dissenting opinion, Justice Alito stated, "This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law.  The Court holds that a state tort jury, rather than the Food and Drug Administration, is ultimately responsible for regulating warning labels for prescription drugs.To be sure, state tort suits can peacefully coexist with the FDA's labeling regime, and they have done so for decades.  But this case is far from peaceful coexistence.  The FDA told Wyeth that Phenergan's label renders its use 'safe.'  But the State of Vermont, through its tort law, said: 'Not so.'" #

Full post as published by InjuryBoard on March 04, 2009 (boomark / email).