Big Pharma: Is Paying Big Fines More Profitable than Telling Doctors and Consumers the Truth in Marketing?

This week, Johnson & Johnson etched its name in the history books of another big pharma company that has been fined over billions of dollars due to a drug manufacturer practices of improper marketing and failure to warn.  Johnson & Johnson pled guilty to claims stemming from allegations that the giant pharmaceutical company knowingly marketed [...]

November 7th, 2013|Actos Diabetes Drug, Avandia Diabetes Drug, DePuy Hip Replacement, Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug, Lipitor, Transvaginal Mesh|Comments Off on Big Pharma: Is Paying Big Fines More Profitable than Telling Doctors and Consumers the Truth in Marketing?

Drugs, Advertising, and Risks Associated with Direct to Consumer Ads

If you have watched a news program, sporting event, or network television show recently you have seen multiple ads for drugs or devices that will change your life.  Whether it is “Larry the cable guy” for the “purple” pill, a handsome athletic looking couple looking for the right moment assisted by a “blue” pill, an [...]

October 23rd, 2013|Drug and Medical Device Litigation|Comments Off on Drugs, Advertising, and Risks Associated with Direct to Consumer Ads

California Supreme Court Victory for Generic Fosamax Users

On September 25, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied the generic Fosamax manufacturers petition for review thereby upholding the June 13, 2013 Court of Appeal decision allowing people injured by generic Fosamax to go forward in the Courts and hold the generic manufacturers responsible.  In denying the generic manufacturers Petition, the Supreme Court let stand [...]

September 25th, 2013|Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug|Comments Off on California Supreme Court Victory for Generic Fosamax Users

Appellate Court Victory for Generic Fosamax Users

In a major victory for consumers who used the generic form of Fosamax, (Alendronate sodium) on June 13, 2013 the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three ruled that people who used the generic Fosamax were not preempted by Federal law and the decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing (2011131 S.Ct. 2567 but [...]

June 13th, 2013|Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug|Comments Off on Appellate Court Victory for Generic Fosamax Users

Who is Responsible for J&J’s DePuy ASR, Pinnacle, Ethicon’s Gynecare, and Merck’s Vioxx and Fosamax?

Consumers injured by defective devices face an armada of attorneys as they seek to hold accountable device makers such as J&J’s hip implants DePuy ASR, DePuy Pinnacle, J&J’s transvaginal mesh product Ethicon, and Merck’s FOSAMAX that has left countless post menopausal women with atypical femur fractures.  Currently there are over 10,000 pending cases in the [...]

May 28th, 2013|Actos Diabetes Drug, DePuy Hip Replacement, Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug, Transvaginal Mesh|Comments Off on Who is Responsible for J&J’s DePuy ASR, Pinnacle, Ethicon’s Gynecare, and Merck’s Vioxx and Fosamax?

New Jersey Fosamax Femur Fracture Trial Update

Glynn v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (3:11-cv-05304, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey) started trial in April 2013.  Evidence was presented from internal documents and experts from both sides as to the benefits and risks of Fosamax.  The jury was asked to decide if Fosamax was defective, whether Merck provided adequate warnings, and [...]

April 30th, 2013|Drug and Medical Device Litigation, Fosamax Osteoporosis Drug|Comments Off on New Jersey Fosamax Femur Fracture Trial Update