News Articles Blog » Mass Torts

Requip Side Effect Lawyers Explain Basis For Lawsuits Against GlaxcoSmithKline for Gambling Addictions and Other Compulsive Disorders

admin — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:59:28 +0000

Our Requip lawyers will attempt here to explain to the skeptical the legal basis for the lawsuits against GlaxcoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Requip, for the gambling losses and consequent bankruptcies, divorces, broken families, and psychological and emotional suffering resulting from this dopamine agonist pharmaceutical.

In the view of many, gambling is a vice, and the opinion of those who hold this view is that gamblers should take their losses, just as they would have taken the economic benefit of wins. But in the view of our Requip attorneys, it isn’t so simple when a man or woman who has never gambled or has gambled only moderately is given a drug, such as Requip or Mirapex, which alters their brain chemistry so that they lose their “impulse control” to the point where they develop artificially induced obsessive compulsive disorders, including most prominently gambling addictions. These are people who did not have a compulsive gambling disorder before being prescribed Requip, but as scientific studies have demonstrated, after receiving Requip an increased number, above the percentage in any randomly selected population, develop a gambling addiction, and as our Requip lawyers also observe, returned to their normal lives, without a compulsive gambling disorder, as soon as they were taken off Requip or Mirapex.

Our Requip lawyers have reviewed the extant evidence with regard to Requip use and gambling disorders and have concluded that there is ample evidence for the association of Requip and the similar drug, Mirapex, and gambling addiction. Requip, a drug approved by the FDA for the treatment to reduce the motor “tremors” of Parkinson’s Disease and Restless Legs Syndrome. Requip serves this function because it is a “dopamine agonist,” a drug which mimics the function of this natural “neurotransmitter,” dopamine, in the brain. But while natural dopamine and the drug Requip, which mimics dopamine, has important motor functions, useful for these FDA approved indications, the drug’s effects on the brain reinforces certain behaviors, including gambling, eating disorders, and intimate relations, by increasing feelings of pleasure, specifically for these activities which humans find “rewarding.” As our Requip lawyers have seen it described in the scientific literature, this increased pleasure perceived by the brain associated with these rewarding behaviors, such as the “rush” associated with gambling, lead to obsessions, or obsessive compulsive disorders, and in particular compulsive gambling, as a function of a loss of “impulse control.”

The scientific literature with regard to both these dopamine agonists, Requip and Mirapex, is now overwhelming in its indictment of these drugs as responsible in particular for gambling addictions in people who did not suffer from compulsive gambling prior to being prescribed these drugs. Our Requip attorneys refer specifically to studies which are reviewed much more extensively on our “Requip lawyers compulsive gambling addiction page, finding that these dopamine agonists were associated with gambling addictions as early as 2003, first discovered by the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Research Center, the findings of an increased incidence of gambling addiction which were then replicated by the Mayo Clinic in 2005, followed by additional replication in a large study of 3000 Requip and Mirapex patients finding that 13 percent suffered from at least 1 of 4 identified compulsive behaviors.

In terms of the liability of GlaxoSmithKline, our Requip lawyers have formed the opinion that the manufacturer should have warned of the risk of developing compulsive disorders, including specifically, gambling addiction. While the early studies focused mainly on Mirapex, the manufacturer clearly should have recognized that Requip served the same function – both as dopamine agonists for the same clinical indications – to likely have the same compulsive gambling side effects. The mechanism of action is the same, and the 1998 study then involved both Requip and Mirapex subjects, by then making plain, in the view of our Requip attorneys, that the identification of dopamine agonist complicity in gambling addiction was indisputable.

In the view of our Requip lawyers, those who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease or RLS and sought medical care for the tremors associated with their diseases were innocent for failing to understand that the consequence of their use of these dopamine agonists would be the loss of their impulse control, gambling addiction, economic devastation, and broken families. And in the view of our Requip attorneys, this was directly the result of the failure of GlaxcoSmithKline to warn of the risk of gambling addiction. This victims of corporate irresponsibility, in GSK’s endeavor to maintain profit for the sale of Requip, should not viewed as suffering from “vice,” but rather, suffering innocently from a drug induced compulsive disorder. In the view of our Requip lawyers, the victims of GSK’s failure to warn of the gambling addiction side effect of its drug should not be held in contempt, but offered only our compassion.

Ray Henke
Mr. Henke is a senior trial lawyer with the “Serious Injury Lawyers Law Group

Digitek Plaintiffs Product Liability Lawyers Describe the Manufacturing Defect Which is The Basis for the Recall and Drug Product Litigation

admin — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:38:58 +0000

The manufacturer of Digitek, Actavis Totowa LLC, issued a nationwide Class 1 recall of all strengths of Digitek tablets on April 25, 2008. The Class 1 recall was issued on the basis that the product poses a substantial risk of serious injury or death.The Digitek tablets were distributed by UDL Laboratories, under a UDL label and by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, with a “Bertek” label. For information with regard to the Digitek litigation The following is a summary of the basis for liability against Activis for the manufacturing defect which is believed to result in patient injury and death. For complete information with regard to the Digitek litigation you may refer to our Digitek pharmaceutical product liability lawyers discussion of the respective merits of class action lawsuits and individual lawsuits against the manufacturer.

Digitek is the Actavis brand name for Digoxin tablets, commonly prescribed as treatment for abnormal heart rhythms and heart failure. The manufacturer issued the Class 1 national recall because Digitek tablets were distributed to pharmacies with double the thickness and it is presumed, twice the indicated dosage of the active ingredient. The Food and Drug administration has received adverse reaction reports of illness and injury resulting from ingestion of Digitek tablets, and many others have come forward across the nation with symptoms typical of digitalis toxicity. Our pharmaceutical product liability lawyers have arrived at the conclusion that the double strength Digitek tablets pose the serious risk of toxicity, including the risk of death, particularly in patients with renal failure and those who are on dialysis.

It appears from the notice of Class 1 recall that the Digitek manufacturer has acknowledged the manufacturing defect, specifically the inclusion of twice the indicated dosage of the drug, which is also, in our opinion, persuasive evidence of manufacturer negligence. The high dosages of Digitek can result in Digitalis toxicity, which can lead to low blood pressure, cardiac instability, bradycardia, meaning a slow heartbeat, and death, often presenting also with nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.

Ray Henke, Principle trial attorney, California Digitek Pharmaceutical Product Liability Lawyers Group

Environmental Disaster Law

jana — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:37:57 +0000

On March 23, 1989, the supertanker Exxon Valdez pulled out of Valdez, Alaska, loaded with more than 56,000,000 gallons of crude oil. Captain Joseph Hazelwood, the Master of the vessel, had spent the day drinking with crew members. He had consumed at least eight vodka doubles and his blood alcohol level stood at .241 – more than six times the permissible level under Coast Guard regulations. Third mate Gregory Cousins was on duty beyond the limits specified by federal fatigue laws. Hazelwood, Cousins and the rest of the crew faced a night voyage through ice in Prince William Sound. Hazelwood’s intoxication was evident from the alcohol on his breath, his slurred speech (captured on audiotape) and, most of all, his actions as the ship navigated the sound.
While passing through fishing grounds, Hazelwood took the Exxon Valdez outside established shipping lanes to avoid ice. He put the vessel on automatic pilot, accelerating at Bligh Reef. Hazelwood then left the bridge in violation of Federal Pilotage Regulations. As he went below, Hazelwood gave vague instructions to the inexperienced and fatigued Cousins. Within minutes, the supertanker struck Bligh Reef, spilling 11,000,000 gallons of oil, thereby causing the largest oil spill and greatest environmental disaster at that time experienced in American history.
Following the grounding, lawsuits were filed in Alaska State and Federal Court on behalf of approximately 45,000 individuals, businesses, native corporations and local governments, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Most of the state court actions were ultimately removed to federal court. The Federal District Court carefully managed this litigation. It entered hundreds of orders, and the discovery master entered hundreds more. The trial plan provided for four separate phases of trial. The first three phases were to be tried to a single jury of 12 (rather than the customary six), with a unanimous verdict required. Trial proceeded as follows:
1. Phase 1 and began on May 9, 1994, 5 years after the spill, and ended on June 6, 1994. A week later, on June 13, 1994, the jury returned a verdict that both Exxon and Hazelwood had been reckless.
2. Phase IIA went to trial in June 20, 1994, to determine the lost harvest, loss price and permit valuation claims in the Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and Chignik salmon and herring fisheries. After deliberating a month (from July 11, 1994 to August 11, 1994), the jury awarded hundreds of millions in compensatory damages on these claims.
3. Phase III was tried between August 22, 1994 and August 29, 1994. In this phase, the jury was asked to decide whether Exxon and/or Hazelwood should be assessed punitive damages, and if so, in what amount. The jury returned its verdict on September 16, 1994, awarding punitive damages against Exxon in the amount of $5 billion and against and Hazelwood in the amount of $5,000.
The compensatory damage claims of all other plaintiffs, not earlier decided in Phase II of the trial, were to have been decided in Phase IV. Phase IV settled before trial, in mid-1996.
Exxon and Hazelwood filed countless post-trial motions. These motions resulted in the District Court issuing approximately 250 pages of rulings. Due to this delay, final judgment was not entered until September 24, 1996. An Amended Judgment was ultimately issued on January 30, 1997.
Appeals and cross appeals next ensued. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its first decision on November 7, 2001. In essence, the court remanded the case to the trial judge, requesting that Judge Holland evaluate the appropriate amount of punitive damages in light of United States Supreme Court decisions, BMW and Cooper. (It should be noted that neither of these Supreme Court decisions existed at the time of the trial of the Exxon Valdez litigation.)
Ultimately, Judge Holland reluctantly reduced the jury’s punitive damage award from $5 billion to $4.5 billion. Judge Holland went on to note that interest on the judgment itself would be somewhere in the range of approximately $2.5 billion. Exxon appealed again.
On Friday, December 22, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again issued decision, reducing the punitive damage award against Exxon from $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Exxon immediately sought en banc rehearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2007, rehearing was denied. This left Exxon with the option of a writ to the United States Supreme Court, which it did.
Incredibly, on October 29, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted Exxon’s Writ, and has agreed to decide the propriety of the revised judgment. The case will likely be argued in during spring, 2008. One Justice, Samuel Alito, recused himself due to ownership of between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock.
Clearly, this is one of the oldest pieces of environmental disasters litigation in the country. Who would have ever imagined that following one of the largest oil spills in the world, caused by a clearly drunken Captain, over 18 years would pass without one penny in punitive damages being paid to those so greatly damaged by the spill.
From a practical standpoint, many damaged by the spill believe that Exxon has already prevailed because they’ve literally worn people out. Following the environmental disasters, numerous people were forced into bankruptcy. Since the spill, numerous others have died, leaving their heirs to seek recompense. Even some of the most prominent lawyers involved in the litigation (Melvin M. Belli, Sr., Jerry Cohen, Leonard Ring, Richard Gerry, among others), have since passed away. Though bittersweet, perhaps this tragic litigation is finally nearing completion.
From a legal perspective, there is much to be said about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals December 22, 2006, opinion. Was the award of $4.5 billion “grossly excessive”? After a defendant displays egregious, reprehensible, conduct sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages, should conduct taken by defendant thereafter serve to reduce a jury’s punitive damage award? Perhaps these questions would be best answered through the analysis of cases other than the Exxon Valdez litigation. But, whether one agrees with Judge Schroeder’s analysis, or not, surely everyone agrees with her comment, “It is time for this protracted litigation to end.”
Unfortunately, with the United States Supreme Court’s grant of Exxon’s Writ, the saga is guaranteed to continue, and potentially with significant consequence to the victims of this avoidable tragedy. The Scarlett Law Group are National Trial Lawyers based in San Francisco, California with outstanding results in cases involving automobile accidents,airplane crashes,traumatic brain and, environmental disasters
http://archivex-ht.com/articles/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/
http://www.articleaddict.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/19593
http://www.articleadventure.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/128422

http://graciousgeek.com/articledetail.php?artid=9799&catid=9

http://www.series-of-articles.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/11193

http://www.articlemetropolis.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/155947

http://www.webiar.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/186614
http://www.articleated.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/15132
http://www.articledirectory.com/Art/126849/11/Environmental-Disaster-Law.html
http://www.myarticlesdirectory.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/70260
http://www.gardenepic.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/75906
http://qualityfreearticles.com/articledetail.php?artid=69412&catid=9
http://www.itempad.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/42987
http://misterarticle.com/articledetail.php?artid=57094&catid=309

http://www.thearticleboard.com/articles/47604/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.articleus.com/articles/1030/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.tntarticles.com/business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://dynamicarticle.org/business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://www.guidemegreen.com/articles/article-detail.html?aID=1368
http://www.pacificarticles.com/articles/9257/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Environmental-Disaster-Law.html
http://www.articlesrevenue.com/articles/1465/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.bluewaterarticles.com/business/environmental-disaster-law.html

http://www.articlesdirectory.in/articles/109085/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://sqsv.com/business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://www.arucc2006.com/?a=articles&p=1813
http://www.articlebasement.com/articles/55905/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://www.articleplanets.com/articles/56381/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law/Page1.html
http://articlebots.com/node/2365
http://www.businesscurrents.net/articles/3860/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law

http://www.pandoras-archive.com/articles/2943/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law
http://www.freeblogarticles.com/my_articles/
http://articlecity.com.au/Business/environmental-disaster-law.html
http://articlecue.com/articledetail.php?artid=110241&catid=9
http://www.articledepot.net/articles/12819/1/Environmental-Disaster-Law
http://www.articlesplash.com/Article/Environmental-Disaster-Law/93175
http://content-edge.com/articledetail.php?artid=64716&catid=9
http://www.myfreearticlecentral.com/Article_13914_Environmental-Disaster-Law.aspx

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Disaster

admin — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:09:19 +0000

While passing through fishing grounds, Hazelwood took the Exxon Valdez outside established shipping lanes to avoid ice. He put the vessel on automatic pilot, accelerating at Bligh Reef. Hazelwood then left the bridge in violation of Federal Pilotage Regulations. As he went below, Hazelwood gave vague instructions to the inexperienced and fatigued Cousins. Within minutes, the supertanker struck Bligh Reef, spilling 11,000,000 gallons of oil, thereby causing the largest oil spill and greatest environmental disaster at that time experienced in American history.

Following the grounding, lawsuits were filed in Alaska State and Federal Court on behalf of approximately 45,000 individuals, businesses, native corporations and local governments, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. Most of the state court actions were ultimately removed to federal court. The Federal District Court carefully managed this litigation. It entered hundreds of orders, and the discovery master entered hundreds more. The trial plan provided for four separate phases of trial. The first three phases were to be tried to a single jury of 12 (rather than the customary six), with a unanimous verdict required. Trial proceeded as follows:

1. Phase 1 and began on May 9, 1994, 5 years after the spill, and ended on June 6, 1994. A week later, on June 13, 1994, the jury returned a verdict that both Exxon and Hazelwood had been reckless.

2. Phase IIA went to trial in June 20, 1994, to determine the lost harvest, loss price and permit valuation claims in the Prince William Sound, Kodiak, Cook Inlet, and Chignik salmon and herring fisheries. After deliberating a month (from July 11, 1994 to August 11, 1994), the jury awarded hundreds of millions in compensatory damages on these claims.

3. Phase III was tried between August 22, 1994 and August 29, 1994. In this phase, the jury was asked to decide whether Exxon and/or Hazelwood should be assessed punitive damages, and if so, in what amount. The jury returned its verdict on September 16, 1994, awarding punitive damages against Exxon in the amount of $5 billion and against and Hazelwood in the amount of $5,000.

The compensatory damage claims of all other plaintiffs, not earlier decided in Phase II of the trial, were to have been decided in Phase IV. Phase IV settled before trial, in mid-1996.

Exxon and Hazelwood filed countless post-trial motions. These motions resulted in the District Court issuing approximately 250 pages of rulings. Due to this delay, final judgment was not entered until September 24, 1996. An Amended Judgment was ultimately issued on January 30, 1997.

Appeals and cross appeals next ensued. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its first decision on November 7, 2001. In essence, the court remanded the case to the trial judge, requesting that Judge Holland evaluate the appropriate amount of punitive damages in light of United States Supreme Court decisions, BMW and Cooper. (It should be noted that neither of these Supreme Court decisions existed at the time of the trial of the Exxon Valdez litigation.)

Ultimately, Judge Holland reluctantly reduced the jury’s punitive damage award from $5 billion to $4.5 billion. Judge Holland went on to note that interest on the judgment itself would be somewhere in the range of approximately $2.5 billion. Exxon appealed again.

On Friday, December 22, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again issued decision, reducing the punitive damage award against Exxon from $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Exxon immediately sought en banc rehearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 23, 2007, rehearing was denied. This left Exxon with the option of a writ to the United States Supreme Court, which it did.

Incredibly, on October 29, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted Exxon’s Writ, and has agreed to decide the propriety of the revised judgment. The case will likely be argued in during spring, 2008. One Justice, Samuel Alito, recused himself due to ownership of between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock.

Clearly, this is one of the oldest pieces of litigation in the country. Who would have ever imagined that following one of the largest oil spills in the world, caused by a clearly drunken Captain, over 18 years would pass without one penny in punitive damages being paid to those so greatly damaged by the spill.

From a practical standpoint, many damaged by the spill believe that Exxon has already prevailed because they’ve literally worn people out. Following the spill, numerous people were forced into bankruptcy. Since the spill, numerous others have died, leaving their heirs to seek recompense. Even some of the most prominent lawyers involved in the litigation (Melvin M. Belli, Sr., Jerry Cohen, Leonard Ring, Richard Gerry, among others), have since passed away. Though bittersweet, perhaps this tragic litigation is finally nearing completion.

From a legal perspective, there is much to be said about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals December 22, 2006, opinion. Was the award of $4.5 billion “grossly excessive”? After a defendant displays egregious, reprehensible, conduct sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages, should conduct taken by defendant thereafter serve to reduce a jury’s punitive damage award? Perhaps these questions would be best answered through the analysis of cases other than the Exxon Valdez litigation. But, whether one agrees with Judge Schroeder’s analysis, or not, surely everyone agrees with her comment, “It is time for this protracted litigation to end.”

Unfortunately, with the United States Supreme Court’s grant of Exxon’s Writ, the saga is guaranteed to continue, and potentially with significant consequence to the victims of this avoidable tragedy.

Randy Scarlett is a trial lawyer based in San Francisco, CA specializing in traumatic brain injury and mass torts.