Zantac Lawsuit


Researching drug company and regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years
Humanist, humorist
Showing posts with label Anthony Rosthschild. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthony Rosthschild. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals



Wendy Dolin
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Chicago


Earlier today the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard a plea from GSK with regard to reasons why they don't feel they should pay a $3million fine handed down to them last year. (Verdict)

It's quite a beautiful piece of audio I'm about to offer you. Yes, there's a lot of legal talk about preemptions and such forth, but the main feast is pretty much delivered without the starters.

GlaxoSmithKline was, today, represented by their counsel,  Lisa Blatt. Wendy Dolin was represented by Brent Wisner of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC

The three Justices were David Hamilton, Diane Wood (Chief Judge) and Diane Sykes.

You'll note from the get-go how Diane Wood flusters GSK's counsel. It's a gripping 54 minutes, folks!




If you're having difficulty with the player then you can download the mp3 direct here.

Bob Fiddaman




Thursday, March 22, 2018

GSK's Nutcracker Dilemma





nutcracker
A tough woman who, when provoked, will literally crack your nuts. - Urban Dictionary (5)


GSK has been delivered a swift kick in the gonads regarding the Dolin Vs GlaxoSmithKline appeal process.

The company was held liable in April 2017 when a jury found it responsible for the labeling on their Paxil product as well as generic equivalents.

Ever since then GSK, via their hired attorneys, King & Spalding, has been crying like big babies. Motions have been filed whereby they blame the jury. Motions have been filed whereby the blame the Judge too.

In fact, since this case first came to light GSK have blamed everyone but themselves, including the victim, Stewart Dolin, his doctor, and even the FDA!

Now they have someone else to blame, namely the States of California and Massachusetts.

In a decision released last Friday in Rafferty v. Merck, case number SJC-12347, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that brand-name drug makers can be sued for recklessness if they intentionally fail to update warning labels for their products that makers of generic versions must also adopt. Rafferty had alleged that he suffered from side effects, including sexual dysfunction, after taking the generic version of Merck’s Proscar. Rafferty's case against Merck was previously thrown out but the ruling was reversed last week, allowing Rafferty to sue Merck for recklessness rather than negligence.

Recklessness basically means the claimant has to show that a drug maker intentionally failed to update its warning label despite knowing the risks. This was already proven in the original Dolin Vs GSK case; hence the jury reached a decision that found GSK liable. The jury found for Dolin and awarded her $3 million. However, she has not seen a penny as GSK has filed motion after motion in efforts to avoid paying and have the judgment overturned. Now the recent Massachusetts decision means GSK will have to rethink their strategy, possibly by blaming Wendy Dolin's next door neighbor's cat!

Back in December 2017,  the California Supreme Court also ruled that brand-name drug makers can be sued for failing to warn users about the risks of generic versions of their drugs.

It's not looking good for GSK as their appeal to the Seventh Circuit to overturn the Dolin verdict seems dead on arrival. Today's news is great for Dolin's attorneys, Baum Hedlund, who are now also looking to help consumers who have attempted suicide whilst taking paroxetine manufactured by Apotex.

Back stories of how the Dolin trial unfolded below.


Bob Fiddaman

Dolin v GSK - Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - Day Two - "Jack-In-The-Box"

Dolin vs GSK - Healy 'Rocks Da House'

Dolin Vs GSK - JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK - The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 4 - Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 6 - Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 7 - Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 8 - Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Dolin Vs GSK - Wendy's Cross and GSK's Petition

Dolin Vs GSK - Robert "Bling Bling" Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning "Futile", Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK: Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - The Verdict

Exclusive: Interview With Wendy Dolin


From Chicago to New York - The Legacy of Stewart Dolin

Dolin Wins...Again

Dolin Vs GSK: Personal Vendetta or Bigger Picture?


GSK's Attorney Labels His Failure An "Accomplishment"

Generic Paxil Lawsuits Filed




Monday, December 18, 2017

GSK's Attorney Labels His Failure An "Accomplishment"



King & Spalding's top asshat asset, Andrew Bayman (above), was featured last week in a special interview on the legal-based website Law360. His interview, as you would imagine, is seen as a massive PR exercise for the firm he works for and also the firm he represents in litigation, GlaxoSmithKline.

Bayman, along with his co-defender Todd Davis, were in action earlier this year in the Dolin Vs GlaxoSmithKline trial in Chicago, a trial which saw them roundly trounced by the legal team of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC and Rapoport Law Offices, P.C.

In his summation to the jury Bayman uttered the immortal words, "Don’t you think if these medicines caused suicide someone would have spoken up?"

Hmm, the jury returned a verdict against the company he was representing yet, according to his interview with Law360, he sees this as a personal victory.

Law360 put Bayman in the spotlight by claiming, "King & Spalding LLP's Andrew Bayman helped limit GlaxoSmithKline's damages to $3 million in a closely watched federal trial over the company's liability for the suicide of a Reed Smith LLP partner who used a generic version of Paxil, landing him among Law360's 2017 Product Liability MVPs."

Law360 asked Bayman what he thought his biggest accomplishment was this year. He cites the Dolin trial as his biggest 'accomplishment.'
"We knew it was a very challenging case. We knew there was a risk of a really big verdict, given his earnings and his age," he said. "The company felt so strongly about its legal position that it said we're going to try this case, knowing that there was a huge risk of a very large verdict."
Hang on a minute, didn't Bayman lose the case?

Why is he singing from the rafters about such failure? Why is that failure his own biggest accomplishment this year? He must lead an unaccomplished life considering he defines his Dolin Vs GlaxoSmithKline failure as a success.

On the pharmaceutical industry, Bayman believes that big pharma "have created medicines that have changed people's lives."

He's right. Just ask Wendy Dolin how her life has changed after her husband took paroxetine. Ask her kids and Stewart's friends how much their lives have changed, too.

Bayman continued by praising the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry.

"In the past", he said,"before they had these drugs, people were not able to get out of bed and lead normal lives." 

During the trial of Dolin Vs GlaxoSmithKline, Bayman was jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box, almost objecting to everything the plaintiff team wanted to tell or show the jury. Bayman didn't, it seemed, like any visuals, none more so than the following that was shown to the jury.



The above visual showed the jury how 22 adults had died during paroxetine clinical trials, all but two had died by suicide, all of whom were taking GlaxoSmithKline's Paxil at the time of their death. So, Mr. Bayman, there are 22 people here who can't get out of bed and lead normal lives, 20 of them killed themselves after ingesting Paxil, a drug that certainly did change the course of their lives.

Bayman told Law360, "I don't have any engineering background. I don't have any chemistry background," he said. "That in some ways has been an advantage, because I tell my experts, if you can't explain this to me, we're not going to be able to explain it to a jury who doesn't have a technical background."

So, the defense experts at the Dolin trial didn't explain their points to the jury correctly then? Or perhaps those experts weren't managed well by Bayman and co?

On giving advice to young product liability attorneys, Bayman told Law360, "There are different issues that you see in product liability litigation, and someone who has deep expertise can be particularly valuable." 

Nice of him to pay homage to Brent Wisner of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC.

The Law360 article is here.

Bayman's biggest accomplishment this year can be seen in the links below.

Bob Fiddaman


Coverage of Bayman's biggest accomplishment

Dolin v GSK - Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - Day Two - "Jack-In-The-Box"

Dolin vs GSK - Healy 'Rocks Da House'

Dolin Vs GSK - JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK - The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 4 - Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 6 - Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 7 - Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 8 - Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Dolin Vs GSK - Wendy's Cross and GSK's Petition

Dolin Vs GSK - Robert "Bling Bling" Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning "Futile", Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK: Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - The Verdict

Exclusive: Interview With Wendy Dolin


From Chicago to New York - The Legacy of Stewart Dolin

Dolin Wins...Again

Dolin Vs GSK: Personal Vendetta or Bigger Picture?




Thursday, August 03, 2017

GSK Blame Stewart Dolin in Move for New Trial




One would have thought the case filed against GSK by Wendy Dolin was done and dusted. However, GSK has been adamant that the verdict handed down by the jury in Chicago last April is wrong. (Boo hoo)



Cry Me A River

GSK continues to cry its river of DeNile after being found responsible for Stewart Dolin's Paxil-induced death. Together with its King & Spalding lawyers, GSK now claims:

1)  U.S. District Judge William T. Hart did not properly instruct the jury

2) Dolin's doctor did not properly warn his patient that GSK's product increases suicidality and suicide

3) Ergo, when Dolin started suffering from Paxil-induced akathisia and psychosis, he should have noticed these adverse drug reactions (ADRs) before dying.

To most people, GSKs claims are ridiculous. But for GSK and other pharmaceutical companies, such outlandish claims are just business as usual.

GSK is essentially saying, "Yes, our drug and any generic version of it, has a propensity to cause someone to kill themselves. But we refute any responsibility because, together with the FDA, we wrote a vague warning about these risks. Further, doctors who prescribe our drug should communicate these risks to patients. Then, it is up to Paxil consumers to "choose" whether or not they want to kill themselves when suffering from Paxil-induced akathisia."

GSKs' claims are similar to ones they repeated for six-weeks during the Dolin vs. GSK trial. GSK blamed Stewart Dolin's death on his supposed "illness." GSK blamed Dolin's death on the doctor who prescribed their product. GSK blamed Dolin's death on the FDA. Now, GSK is blaming the judge for the jury's guilty verdict against GSK.

Don't Ya Just Love 'Em?

The jury ruled against GSK because the lackluster King & Spalding legal team couldn't defend the indefensible. Mounds of evidence piled up exposing GSKs greed and guilt. (The jury was likely also shocked to hear about the pile of bodies GSK tried to conceal--those innocent volunteers who died during Paxil's clinical trials.)

Not only did the jury find GSK responsible for Dolin's death; they also found GSK responsible for Dolin's pain and suffering. Therefore, they made two separate monetary awards.

GSK doesn't want to pay nor admit guilt. They are calling for a new trial and repeating their tactic of blaming everyone else for the ADRs their product causes. GSK states:

-  Its hands were tied because supposedly drug regulators would not allow GSK to use the specific warning language it wanted

- The jury instructions didn't entirely separate/7' different elements necessary for liability

- The doctor's testimony shows he was aware of the risk when prescribing paroxetine.

GSK's lackluster defense saw the jury rule in favor of Wendy Dolin and award her $2 million for wrongful death and $1 million for pain and suffering in the days before he took his life. She has yet to see a dime of that award because GSK are crying this river of denial. (De Nile)

Wendy Dolin, via her legal team, Baum Hedlund and Rapoport Law Offices PC, said Stewart's doctor testified that when he decided to prescribe the drug, he relied on the 2010 Paxil label. This Paxil label didn’t warn that Paxil could lead to suicidality in adults over age 24.  Furthermore, GSK failed to alert drug regulators that research showed an increased suicide risk among adults who take Paxil.

In 2007, GSK was invited by the FDA to discuss the inclusion of label language specific to adult suicidality. GSK then failed to meet with the FDA about this labeling issue. GSK did, however, have a duty to warn consumers even if the FDA decided not to. A 2006 video deposition played at trial shows GSK's former head, JP Garnier.

"You can change your label without even getting approval from the FDA, there's a law that allows you to do that, correct?"

Garnier answered, "Yes, but in practice, you don't want to do that."

He was then pressed, "Okay. But you can do it if you want, the law allows that to occur?"

Garnier replied, "Yes, but you do want the FDA to agree with the changes you are going to propose because they have the power to correct what you just said the day before. You know, let's say we decide to inform physicians of some new event affecting our drug, well, the next day the FDA might come back and say, well, we didn't like the way you did this, you have to redo it. So it's considerably disrupting, that's why most companies go through the FDA first, in practice, but you are right, there is a legal right for us to go directly to the public."

So, even Glaxo's own head was agreeing that GSK could have by-passed the FDA if it wanted to. The key phrase here is from Garnier's own mouth, "...there is a legal right for us to go directly to the public."

During the trial, it was revealed that there were 20 adult suicides in paroxetine clinical trials. Supposedly, there were no completed suicides in the paroxetine pediatric trials. (I say "supposedly" because one can never be certain if drug companies and regulators are telling the whole truth.) The clinical trial deaths beg the question: Why would GSK go to great lengths to confuse prescribing doctors with the warning about suicidality for patients under the age of 24?

GSK: A Forked-Tongue Monster 

Seeing GSK in court conjured up images of a forked-tongue monster speaking from both sides of its mouth. On opening day of the Dolin vs GSK trial, GSK's attorneys told jurors Paxil does not cause suicide.

Later, GSK lawyers claimed the company did everything in its power to show Stewart's doctor that Paxil increases the risk of suicidal thoughts and suicidal action among anyone who consumes it.

I'm reminded of a scene from the brilliant Fawlty Towers. Basil (John Cleese) returns to his hotel to discover that the building renovations haven't quite gone according to plan. We see "fault" here being passed around from pillar to post. Basil's reaction is priceless.

I suspect if Stewart Dolin was alive today, this would be his response.




Law 360 write about GSK's latest shenanigans here.

Bob Fiddaman


How the trial unfolded - a day-by-day account

Dolin v GSK - Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - Day Two - "Jack-In-The-Box"

Dolin vs GSK - Healy 'Rocks Da House'

Dolin Vs GSK - JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK - The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 4 - Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 6 - Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 7 - Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 8 - Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Dolin Vs GSK - Wendy's Cross and GSK's Petition

Dolin Vs GSK - Robert "Bling Bling" Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning "Futile", Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK: Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - The Verdict








Friday, April 21, 2017

For GSK. For King & Spalding




So, I hear you are claiming that you are going to appeal because you think a unanimous decision means that, um, the jury were wrong?

So, you intend to spend another $4 to $5million to, um, save $3 million?

No doubt your three experts, Gibbons, Kraus and Rothschild will be rubbing their hands. Collectively another half a million bucks coming their way!

This is for Andrew Bayman, for Todd Davis and for Glaxo's new CEO, Emma Walmsley.


CLICK HERE TO PLAY VIDEO



That is all.

For now ;-)

COMING SOON: Exclusive interview with Wendy Dolin.

Bob Fiddaman

Back stories

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin v GSK - Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - Day Two - "Jack-In-The-Box"

Dolin vs GSK - Healy 'Rocks Da House'

Dolin Vs GSK - JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK - The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 4 - Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 6 - Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 7 - Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 8 - Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Dolin Vs GSK - Wendy's Cross and GSK's Petition

Dolin Vs GSK - Robert "Bling Bling" Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning "Futile", Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK : Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - The Verdict





Thursday, April 20, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK - The Verdict





“Don’t you think if these medicines caused suicide someone would have spoken up?” ~ Andy Bayman - King & Spalding.

The jury have.


GlaxoSmithKline have been found guilty by a jury today in Chicago.

The jury found for plaintiff, Wendy Dolin, who filed suit against GlaxoSmithKline after her husband, Stewart, took his life 6 days after being started on a generic version of Glaxo's controversial antidepressant Paxil (known as Seroxat in Europe)

The jury found GlaxoSmithKline liable for the death of Reed Smith LLP partner Stewart Dolin and ordered the pharmaceutical giant to pay $3 million to his widow, Wendy Dolin, reaching the conclusion that a generic version of GSK’s Paxil caused Dolin to take his own life.

Officials from GSK said the verdict was disappointing and that they plan to appeal.

(Insert feelings of shock here)

A huge congratulations to Wendy and her legal team; Brent Wisner of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC, Los Angeles and David Rapoport of Rapoport Law Offices, Chicago.

Updates coming later. In the meantime, here's some of the reasons why the jury returned a guilty verdict. Click on images to enlarge. Images courtesy of Baum Hedlund. But first, read the press release from Baum Hedlund.

PRESS RELEASE - Baum Hedlund

$3M Jury Verdict Against GSK in Landmark Paxil Suicide Case

April 20, 2017, Chicago, Illinois - - A federal jury has sided with the widow of a deceased Chicago attorney in her generic Paxil suicide lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), ordering the pharmaceutical giant to pay $3 million.

The jury verdict resolves allegations in the trial of Dolin v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. (D/B/A GlaxoSmithKline-GSK) over the paroxetine-induced wrongful death of Wendy Dolin’s late husband, Stewart Dolin, who was a partner at the Chicago law firm Reed Smith when he took his own life in 2010. 

“We are very pleased with the jury’s verdict and are grateful for their diligent service,” said Brent Wisner, co-lead trial counsel for Ms. Dolin in the Paxil suicide case. “We feel justice has been served, and are hopeful this verdict will result in a labeling change to warn that people of all ages are at risk. This should send a clear message to GSK and other drug manufacturers that hiding data and manipulating science will not be tolerated. Brand drug manufacturers have the ability and responsibility to make their drug labels accurate. If you create a drug and know that it poses serious risks, regardless of whether consumers use the brand name or generic version of that drug, you have a duty to warn.”

On July 10, 2010, 57-year-old Stewart Dolin began taking the prescription antidepressant medication paroxetine. The brand name version of this medication is called Paxil, which was researched, developed, manufactured and marketed by GSK. Paroxetine and Paxil are the same chemical compound and both use the same product information labeling. GSK created and was responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the Paxil label.

In the early afternoon on July 15, 2010, Stewart Dolin died when he was struck by a CTA Blue-Line train in the subway station near Washington Street in Chicago. Just before this, a nurse at the subway station who did not know Mr. Dolin noticed him pacing back and forth while looking in the direction of an approaching train that was not yet in sight. When the moving train appeared, the nurse observed Mr. Dolin leap in front of the train, where he was struck. Mr. Dolin was pronounced dead from the injuries he suffered due to the collision and his contact with the electrified track after the collision.

The lawsuit alleged GSK failed to adequately warn Mr. Dolin’s doctor about Paxil/paroxetine’s association with an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults of all ages. The Court previously ruled that, although GSK did not manufacture the pills Mr. Dolin ingested, the company was responsible for the label and knew or should have known any failure to warn would result in harm to those taking generic versions of the drug.

“Glaxo has known for two decades that Paxil can cause people of all ages to commit suicide. The company not only hid the risk, but stuck its head in the sand and ignored countless suicides that occurred in its clinical trials,” said attorney Michael Baum, who also represented Ms. Dolin. He added that the drug’s Black Box warning – which states there is a suicide risk for children, adolescents and young adults, but the risk ends at age 24 – is “just wrong.”

During the five-week trial, GSK swore off its responsibility for ensuring the truthfulness of the label, arguing that, because the FDA never made GSK warn of a suicide risk, the company should be exonerated. According to Baum, this argument is “akin to a car speeding past a cop, the cop doesn’t stop the car, and the car crashes into another car and kills someone—the driver who killed someone cannot state it’s not his fault because the cop didn’t stop them.” 

In the end, the jury disagreed with GSK’s arguments, finding that the drug maker cannot sluff off its responsibility for its labeling just because the FDA let the company get away with it. 

Wendy Dolin was represented in her case by R. Brent Wisner and Michael Baum of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman and David E. Rapoport and Matthew Sims of Rapoport Law Offices P.C.

For more information about the trial, visit baumhedlundlaw.com or MISSD.

Dolin v. GSK Trial Transcripts

Dolin v. GSK Trial Exhibits


Robin McCall
Media Relations & PR Manager
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC









Bob Fiddaman

Back stories

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin v GSK - Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - Day Two - "Jack-In-The-Box"

Dolin vs GSK - Healy 'Rocks Da House'

Dolin Vs GSK - JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK - The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 4 - Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 6 - Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 7 - Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 8 - Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Dolin Vs GSK - Wendy's Cross and GSK's Petition

Dolin Vs GSK - Robert "Bling Bling" Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning "Futile", Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK : Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments




Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments







I will keep it short and sweet, if I may.

Here's what King & Spalding's, Andrew Bayman, told the jury yesterday during closing arguments.

“Don’t you think if these medicines caused suicide someone would have spoken up?”

My response...


Now read the evidence...


Dolin Vs GSK - Day Two - "Jack-In-The-Box"

Dolin vs GSK - Healy 'Rocks Da House'

Dolin Vs GSK - JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK - The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 4 - Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 6 - Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 7 - Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 8 - Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Dolin Vs GSK - Wendy's Cross and GSK's Petition

Dolin Vs GSK - Robert "Bling Bling" Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning "Futile", Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK : Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials




Bob Fiddaman



Friday, April 14, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy





The trial is almost over, and the jury has heard from many witnesses for both plaintiff, Wendy Dolin, and Defendant, GSK. GSK's last roll of the dice saw Anthony Rothschild (pictured above) take the stand. Up to 2009, and possibly to the present, Rothschild has taken money and related grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, Cyberonics, and Wyeth. He is a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies to include Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Forest Laboratories, Eli Lilly, and Takeda.

First and foremost, Rothschild describes himself as an expert in psychological autopsies, a method, according to 'All About Forensic Psychology', that involves collecting all available information on the deceased via structured interviews of relatives, friends and healthcare personnel. Additionally, information is supposed to be collected from available health care records and related documents. We know Rothschild had access to Stewart Dolin's medical records and other documents but did he ever interview relatives or friends of Stewart Dolin? Did Rothschild ever interview Stewart's healthcare personnel? It appears he did not.

For a day and a half, under direct examination from defence attorneys, King & Spalding, Rothschild told the jury that  Stewart Dolin's state of mind caused his death and Paxil had nothing to do with Stewart's death. Rothschild further claimed there is no relationship between SSRIs, akathisia, and suicide. He went on to state that, even if there was such a relationship, Stewart Dolin was not suffering from akathisia.

Rothschild told the jury that he treats patients with akathisia, 99% of whom were on neuroleptic and/or antipsychotic medications. When asked if akathisia was difficult to treat, Rothschild answered, "...akathisia is not that complicated to treat. You just give another medication, and you can wipe out the akathisia quickly." Rothschild went on to tell the jury that he had read Stewart Dolin's medical notes and that, in his opinion, Stewart had suicidal thinking on July 6th before starting Paxil.

Oddly, Rothschild also informed the jury that he, Rothschild, walked from the Reed Smith offices to the train station where Stewart Dolin's life ended. Why Rothschild claimed this is unclear, as there is no way Rothschild could ascertain what route Stewart Dolin took from his Reed Smith office to the train station. Rothschild also claimed that he reviewed Stewart Dolin's credit card details and that Stewart had purchased a train ticket. This, too, has not been verified, but Rothschild claimed such a purchase was made in an attempt to convince the jury that, somehow, buying a train ticket, supported Rothschild's opinion that Stewart was of sound mind and body and planned his death.

"If someone has, again, an irresistible impulse, you know, I actually have trouble working that bloody machine. I mean, if you had akathisia, why would you buy a ticket. I mean, you just jump over the thing and run down." He added, "It's just, to me, this was deliberate and planned. I mean, he had, he had to think, "I need the card to get, to buy the ticket, buy the ticket and get on the platform." It took some, you know, it was premeditated. He had planned this out ahead of time."
When asked about the witness who saw Stewart Dolin pacing before he jumped, Rothschild dismissed the restlessness, telling the jury, "A lot of people pace when they're waiting for a train."

I don't know what types of train platforms Rothschild frequents, but I've taken trains many times in my life and have never seen a person pacing the platform. I'd think it rather odd if I saw someone pacing up and down a train platform, and I would be concerned.

Rothschild then claimed he had read the police report in this case. He falsely claimed, under oath, that Michael LoVallo, a managing partner at the law firm where he and Stewart worked, told the police "that these problems at work may have been part of the reason Mr. Dolin committed suicide." However, as you will learn in cross-examination, further on down this post, LoVallo did not state this to the police.

A case for perjury, perhaps? We shall see.

Throughout King & Spalding's direct examination many visuals were used in a futile attempt to convince the jury that Stewart Dolin was frequently criticized by his work colleagues and that this criticism added to Stewart's work-related stress. However, the reality is that Stewart Dolin received excellent reviews from the vast majority of his colleagues and this was later highlighted when Rothschild was cross-examined (below). Rothschild conveniently omitted the excellent appraisals Stewart received from his colleagues.

Cross-examination by David Rapoport 

Plaintiff attorney, David Rapoport started his cross-examination of Rothschild by asking about the supposed statement LoVallo made to the police. Rapoport asked Rothschild if it was a lie. Rothschild answered, "No, it was not." However, the fact is, there was no such statement made to the police by Michael LoVallo. LoVallo does not believe that work stresses caused or contributed to cause Stewart Dolin's suicide, and Rothschild was forced to concede this fact whilst under cross-examination.

Next came the issue of Rothschild's cozy relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. In the Dolin case alone, Rothschild has been paid approximately $165,000 for his testimony. Rapoport pressed Rothschild further and asked him about previous cases where GSK has called him as an "expert" witness. When asked how many times GSK has hired him as a witness in Paxil death cases, Rothschild couldn't seem to count that high. "Going back 15 years, I can't give you an exact number, but it's probably in the neighborhood of 20 or 30."

Thanks for that info, Mr. Rothschild. You've now informed the jury that Paxil has been implicated at least 20 to 30 times in drug-induced death cases.  Did Rothschild receive poor coaching from his attorneys or did he finally decide to tell the whole truth, given that he had previously been caught lying? Of course, in each of the "20 or 30" cases where Rothschild has been paid by GSK for testimony, Rothschild has always claimed Paxil does not cause suicide.

Getting back to the issue of Stewart Dolin's train ticket, Rapoport showed Rothschild a Ventra card. The card is a pre-paid travel pass. Rothschild couldn't say for certain if Stewart used a Ventra card on the day of his death. Strange, because under direct examination Rothschild had claimed that a person with akathisia would not buy a ticket. He presumed that Stewart bought a ticket when in fact Stewart may not have had to buy a ticket at all.

Psychological autopsies

Under cross-examination, Rothschild was asked whether or not he was board certified to conduct psychological autopsies. He answered, "There is no such thing."

It's a crying shame that GSK's expert doesn't know much about the profession in which he claims to be an expert. The Psychological Autopsy Certification Training (PACT) disputes Rothschild's claim. Since 2011, The American Association of Suicidology (AAS) has offered the Psychological Autopsy Investigator Certification Program. I'm amused and aghast that GSK calls an "expert" who has no credentials in his field.

Visuals

During Rothschild direct examination by King & Spalding, many visuals were shown to the jury, visuals that lamely attempted to paint a bad picture of Stewart Dolin. Rapoport picked up on this. One such visual was a 2009 PGL evaluation where comments were left by  Stewart's employees. Rothschild didn't tell the jury about the glowing appraisals Stewart Dolin received. He didn't mention that Stewart's colleagues described Stewart as "honest, hardworking, and one who leads by example." He left out that Stewart "Seems to be decisive and takes what he does very seriously and cares about the group, seems to be a good administrator." He forgot to tell the jury that "Stew is honest and direct in his dealings with the C & S group."  "Stew is approachable and willing to listen. He sincerely wants to do his best. He's able to balance different constituencies" and so on. There were many more compliments of Stewart Dolin that Rothschild left out.

Rapoport then showed how Rothschild, in a previous testimony, claimed there is no evidence that there's a higher rate of death by suicide in children and adolescents who take Paxil versus placebo.

Finally, Rapoport asked Rothschild the following:

"So you've treated thousands of patients, some of them have committed suicide and never once have you found that a drug contributed to suicide in the patients, have you?"

Rothschild answered "No."

Rothschild was then asked further questions by King & Spalding on re-direct examination. It was basically them repeating themselves over and over until finally King & Spalding rested their defence.

David Healy returns to the stand.

In an unusual move, plaintiff's expert witness called Dr. David Healy back to the witness stand. Healy rebutted claims made by GSK's previous witnesses. GSK's "experts" previously criticized Healy's evidence, in particular, Healy's professional knowledge about akathisia.

Healy's evidence was, once again, damning to GSK.

Plaintiff's Exhibit 347
(Fig 1)

Of the 22 deaths that occurred during the Paxil clinical trials, many were violent. GSK's expert, Dr. Kraus, had previously testified that Paxil-related suicides were not violent. Healy was asked, "...of these 22 people who killed themselves while taking Paxil in GSK's clinical trials, how many of them were violent?" Healy answered, "16." He added, "There were a range of acts from hanging to gunshot wounds to throwing themselves in front of trains."

Healy was also asked if  GSK accurately reported suicide events in their Paxil clinical trials?

He answered, "No, they haven't." Furthermore, Healy told the jury, "I have been able to analyze the data from one of GSK's major depressive disorder trials and, in particular, to look at the suicidal events that happened in that trial."


On the subject of akathisia, GSK's "expert" witness, Anthony Rothschild, had earlier told the jury that there was no scientific or peer-reviewed literature supporting an association between akathisia and suicide. Asked whether or not this was true, Healy told the jury this was not true and he further referenced a book about akathisia authored by Dr. Sachdev. Healy informed the jury that this text is viewed as an authoritative work in the field. Healy also stated that GSK's "expert," Anthony Rothschild, had written about akathisia. In Chapter 2 of Rothschild's book, he wrote, "Akathisia, a syndrome marked by distinctly unpleasant symptoms of motor restlessness and anxiety may increase the risk of suicide."

What happened next was another twist in this case. More evidence, it appears, that GSK has been less than honest with the truth. In the Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) trials, GSK claimed 11 subjects attempted suicide. But Healy pointed out that this was incorrect, in reality, 12 people attempted suicide in GSK's MDD trials. When asked if GSK calculated this 12th suicide attempt in any of their analysis, Healy replied, "Apparently not."

This means that the 6.7% increased risk of suicidal behavior among adults who consume Paxil, "should be something more like 7.3," noted Healy.

The combined figure, as reported earlier in this trial, is actually a staggering 8.9%.

After Healy's rebuttal, a defeated Todd Davis from King & Spalding asked the judge to strike the testimony of Healy. The Honorable Judge Hart replied, "the motion to strike is denied."

Closing arguments from both plaintiff and defendant start next week.


Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.