Oregon Case Settled
For Undisclosed Amount

COQUILLE, Ore. — About a month after an Oregon state court jury returned a $29.2 million verdict against American Home Products Corp. in two mild heart valve damage diet drug cases, the case was settled (Juanita Baston v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 99-0306, Richard Wirt v. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-0307, Ore. Cir., Coos Co.; See July 2000, Page 4).

Oregon Circuit Court Judge Michael J. Gilles-pie of Coos County had entered judgment when settlement was reached. The judgment was then vacated by agreement.

Prior to settlement, counsel for the Oregon plaintiff, who also represent certain objectors to the national settlement, asked the diet drug MDL court to take judicial notice of the verdict in anticipation of raising the issue of offensive collateral estoppel (see related story in this issue). In that motion, counsel said it did not expect the Oregon case to settle before judgment was entered.

The motion was withdrawn Aug. 9 after the case settled.

AHP also reported the settlement in it Form 10-Q quarterly report filed Aug. 14 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Oregon case had been viewed as a test of the AHP national settlement. It involved mild heart valve damage claims tried before a reportedly conservative jury. Plaintiff attorneys said that under the AHP national settlement, the two Oregon plaintiffs would have qualified for payments of about $6,000 each.

The plaintiffs were represented at trial by George Fleming and Rand Nolen of Fleming & Associates in Houston, Mike O’Brien of Houston and Dan Clark of Doal, Coalwell, Clark, Mountainspring and Mornarich in Roseburg, Ore. AHP was represented by Edward Arnold, Adam LeBerthon, Mark Spooner and Craig Hentschel of Arnold & Porter in Los Angeles and Margaret Hoffmann and Richard J. Kuhn of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt in Portland, Ore.

 

Wash. PPH Case Settles

PORT ORCHARD, Wash. — A primary pulmonary hypertension diet drug case against American Home Products Corp. settled in July for an undisclosed amount, a source tells Mealey Publications (Marvin Magures v. American Home Products Corp., No. 00-2-00902-1, Wash. Super., Kitsap Co.).

Plaintiff Marvin Magures, 55, took fen-phen for 11 months and Redux for about 10 months. He was diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension in May 1998.

Magures’ current medical condition and outlook is unknown.

No trial date had been set when the case was settled.

Lance Palmer and Maria Diamond of Levin-son, Freidman, Vhugen, Duggan & Bland in Seattle represented Magures.

 

Pa. Diet Drugs Rulings
Seen Applying To
Other State Cases

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania state court judge’s in limine rulings in a state diet drug case might be applied to other litigation, a plaintiff’s attorney said last month after the case settled (Adelia Hawthorne v. American Home Products Corp., et al., June 1998 No. 3911, Pa. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Co.).

(Rulings in Section C. Document #28-000720-006.)

The 13 rulings came June 6 in the case of plaintiff Adelia Hawthorne, who claimed to have suffered mild mitral heart valve damage that had regressed. The case was set for trial June 8 but settled for an undisclosed amount during jury selection.

The case was reportedly the first heart valve case set for trial in state court in Philadelphia.

Motions Denied

Judge Joseph D. O’Keefe Jr. of the Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia County denied motions by AHP to exclude:

• The personnel file of Dr. Marc Deitch, retired senior vice president for Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Inc.

• Evidence of AHP’s attempts to de-schedule diet drugs.

• Internal documents and drafts concerning sales and profit projections and forecasts relating to labeling.

• Adverse drug experience reports or case reports regarding AHP’s Pondimin brand fenfluramine and Redux brand dexfenfluramine.

• Deposition testimony of a Dr. Illingworth.

• Evidence of the combination use of Pondimin and phentermine.

• FDA inspection evidence.

• Evidence of Excerpta Medica.

• Evidence of Interneuron Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s lawsuit accusing AHP of withholding adverse event reports about Redux (See 2/4/00, Page 3).

• Evidence of primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH).

The evidence about Excerpta Medica refers to a publishing company which AHP allegedly paid to ghost write favorable articles about Redux which would allegedly be published in medical journals under the names of doctors.

AHP Motions Granted

Judge O’Keefe granted AHP’s motions to exclude:

• Draft promotional materials regarding Pondimin and Redux and materials received from third-party advertising and public relations firms.

• Reference to the existence of breach of a duty to warn consumers based on the learned intermediary doctrine.

• The “Morton Memo.”

• The Kay Anderson e-mail.

• A document listing reported deaths.

Plaintiff attorney Sol H. Weiss of Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley in Philadelphia said that although Hawthorne settled, Judge O’Keefe’s rulings will have wide-reaching impact on the 500 other heart valve cases in the court.

Impact On Other Cases

“In all likelihood, Judge O’Keefe’s rulings in Hawthorne will apply to all of the other valve cases pending in Philadelphia County and will be persuasive authorities to other state court judges who are beginning to start trials of similar cases,” Weiss said.

Weiss and Tracy A. Finken of Anapol Schwartz, along with Lee B. Balefsky, Heather L. Neulight and Cheryl P. Jacobs of Greitzer & Locks in Philadelphia and Michael Coren and Martin G. Rubenstein of Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren in Philadelphia represent Hawthorne. Michael T. Scott, Robert A. Nicholas, Louis W. Schack and Reetu Danodora of Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay in Philadelphia represent AHP.

 

Mont. Class Plaintiffs Seek
To Bifurcate Medmon,
Punitive Damages Phases

MISSOULA, Mont. — Plaintiffs in Montana’s certified diet drug medical monitoring class action have asked the state court to bifurcate the case to conduct a summary bench trial for medical monitoring and a jury trial for punitive damages (Teri Lamping, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. DV-97-85786, Mont. Dist., Missoula Co.; See 2/1/00, Page 9).

The motion said counsel for defendant American Home Products Corp. objects.

(Motion in Section K. Document #35-000817-108.)

Medmon Claim

The June 9 motion says that because the medical monitoring claim sounds in equity, it should be tried by the court sitting without a jury. It says the trial issues are: were the diet drugs unreasonably dangerous and defective, is it reasonably necessary for class members to undergo some sort of medical monitoring and what sort of monitoring is appropriate?

The motion notes that there is no state-of-the-art defense in Montana.

“Thus, the Defendants’ conduct is not at issue in the medical monitoring case,” it says. “The only issue is whether the diet drugs in question would be considered unreasonable dangerous and defective if marketed now, based upon what is presently known.”

Since the medical monitoring claim does not involve the defendants’ conduct, the motion says the bench trial should be relatively short and manageable.

Punitives Trial Sought

But because the claim for punitive damages involves assessment of the defendants’ conduct and whether there was actual malice under Montana law, the plaintiffs say a jury will be required. That portion of the case, they say, will involve consideration of “significant historical data and literature, as well as considerable expert testimony.”

A punitives trial, the motion says, will require a jury, involve different issues and will likely be longer than the medical monitoring trial.

Bifurcation will allow the estimated 20,000 Montana class members to receive diagnostic testing and promote judicial economy, the motion says.

John M. Morrison of Meloy & Morrison in Helena, Mont., and Steve W. Berman and Jeffrey T. Sprung of Hagens Berman in Seattle represent the plaintiffs. William Evan Jones and Susan P. Roy of Garlington, Lohn & Robinson in Missoula, Mont., and Craig N. Hentschel and Edward T. Arnold of Arnold & Porter in Los Angeles represent AHP.

 

Del. High Court Denies
Servier Interlocutory Appeal
On Jurisdictional Issues

DOVER, Del. — The Delaware Supreme Court recently denied an application for interlocutory review of a trial court ruling denying dismissal of defendants Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Amerique from a state diet drug case (Les Laboratoires Servier, et al. v. Evelyn Wright, et al., No. 235, 2000, Del. Sup.).

In April, the New Castle County Superior Court denied motions by the two French defendants to dismiss them for ineffective lack of service, for lack of personal jurisdiction or for forum non conveniens. The defendants applied for and received certification from the trial court to file an interlocutory appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court.

Exercising its discretion, the Supreme Court refused the application.

Underlying Ruling

In a lengthy underlying ruling, the Superior Court ruled that service by registered letter to the French companies’ offices in France and service to the French Secretary of State complied with Delaware’s long-arm statute and the Hague Convention. It also found it was unnecessary to translate the complaint into French (Evelyn Wright, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 99C-04-361-JOH, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).

(Opinion available. Document #35-000817-009. 28 pages.)

The trial court also denied the defendants’ motion that Delaware lacks personal jurisdiction over them because the state’s long-arm statute does not provide for it or due process prevents it. The court said the record held evidence that although the French defendants licensed but did not manufacture Pondimin brand fenfluramine, they had a “continuing involvement” in the drug’s manufacture, distribution and manufacture.

The court cited a Servier Amerique letter concerning adverse drug reactions for April 1995. A 1973 patent suit involving the parties “show the French defendants engaged in a years-long pattern of pushing their product into and throughout the U.S. market,” the court said.

“And, their efforts were more than licensing,” the court continued. “they were involved in introducing a product into a tightly-regulated market, a market regulated by the FDA. Not only were the French defendants aware of that but they helped in the process and participated in the ongoing nature of the regulatory process.”

The court said it was satisfied that all requirements of due process were met. It noted that the French defendants employed an exclusive U.S. distributor, and a planned effort to penetrate the U.S. diet drug market.

While the defendants did not manufacture Pondimin, the court said they granted the license to do so in the United States.

Minimum Contacts

Minimum contacts with Delaware were established, the court ruled, when the French defendants became involved in FDA regulation of Pondimin and Redux brand dex-fenfluramine. In addition, both were sued in the United States for Pondimin patent infringement.

On the issue of forum non conveniens, the court noted that the French defendants may become liable under joint and several liability and that they are already defendants in the diet drug MDL. The means of gathering information are not insurmountable, the court said, and language was not a barrier in business dealings involving the diet drugs.

“In short, they injected themselves in a big way into the American market and legal system,” the court wrote. “It is most likely that many of the documents the plaintiffs seek here have been or will be produced in the other litigation in which they are involved and may already be translated into English.”

L. Vincent Ramunno of Ramunno & Ramunno in Wilmington, Del., represents the Wright plaintiffs. Mark Minuti of Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul in Wilmington, Del., represents the French defendants.

 

Opt-Out Credits Capped
At $300 Million, Others
Deferred By Amendment

PHILADELPHIA — An amendment to the American Home Products Corp. national diet drug settlement places a $300 million cap on the credit AHP can take for initial opt-outs and defers those credits for up to five years (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, Sheila Brown, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-20593, E.D. Pa.; See July 2000, Page 12).

(Amendment in Section B. Document #28-000803-101.)

On the same day the amendment was filed with the MDL court, AHP disclosed that it might need additional reserves for the diet drug litigation. It did not specify how much more would be needed, but said most of the litigation would be covered by its previous charge.

U.S. Senior Judge Louis C. Bechtle is expected to issue his ruling on final approval of the settlement in mid-September.

The most substantive part of the 25-page amendment, filed July 20 with the diet drug MDL court, addresses the cash flow problem created when 107,000 people unexpectedly signed up for the Accelerated Implementation Option (AIO).

In addition to limiting the credits for initial opt-outs to $300 million, the amendment defers the taking of credits for the initial opt-outs to five years after final judicial approval or the date on which the determination of the initial opt-out credit become final, whichever is later.

The amendment was the subject of an MDL court hearing Aug. 10 in Philadelphia.

The amendment also excludes claims for in utero injury claims, gives the Interim Claims Administrator additional time and $20 million more for processing claims, adds the Earthman Texas state class representatives to the list of those who will receive incentive payments, and allows for more auditing of claims paid.

‘Problems, Glitches’

At the Aug. 10 hearing, Michael D. Fishbein of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia, the chief negotiator of the settlement for Class Counsel, testified that the amendment addressed “problems” and “glitches” that were not anticipated. He said the unexpected number of AIOs created a cash-flow problem.

Fishbein said the settlement parties were concerned that because of the high number of AIOs, there might be times when the demand for benefits exceeded the amount of money available. He said that after “adversarial negotiations” from April to July, Class Counsel and AHP decided to do away with limits on annual contributions by AHP to the settlement.

He said the amendment will give trustees the authority to request enough funds from AHP each year to fund benefits. If AHP finds the amount unreasonable, he said the court will resolve the issue.

Any balances left at the end of each year of the settlement, Fishbein said, will carry forward with 6 percent interest.

In addition, he said any unused funds from the Fund A medical monitoring fund can be transferred to the Fund B injury compensation fund under the amendment, along with accrued interest.

Opt-Out Credits Restructured

The second major change made by the amendment Fishbein said, is when AHP can take credits for opt-outs. Under the amendment, he said initial opt-out credits will be capped at $300 million but other credits will be deferred until the fifth year of the 15-year agreement.

The original credit scheme involving annual credits, Fishbein said, created the risk that the credits might “swamp” claims payments and that “backwards accretion” would “wipe out” the fund.”

The “fix,” Fishbein said, eliminates credits for intermediate opt-outs.

More Auditing

The third major change, Fishbein said, is that AHP can request audits of an additional 5 percent of claims paid each year. He said the original settlement could have resulted in the auditing of all injury compensation claims under the payment matrix.

Minor Changes

Among the minor changes made to the settlement by the amendment, Fishbein said, is that it specifically states that distributors who sold fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine and phentermine are not released parties.

Fishbein said the original settlement never intended to foreclose any claims involving in utero injuries to unborn children and the amendment fixes that.

Amounts Sufficient

Samuel J. Kursh, Ph.D., and Harvey Rosen, Ph.D., both testified that the original settlement amount is enough to cover the litigation.

Opt-Outs Left Out?

George Michael Jamail of Reaud, Morgan & Quinn in Beaumont, Texas, asked the court to take judicial notice that based on expert testimony, the amendment eliminated the cash-flow problem and that persons who already opted out could not benefit from that knowledge.

Fishbein said that opt-outs can opt into the settlement and AHP has said it would not object to them. He said the Interim Claims Administrator updates information about the settlement on his Web site and that the law does not require re-notice of the class because of changes to the agreement.

Cort Clayton of Dechert, Price & Rhoads of Philadelphia, counsel for the Blue Cross Objectors, told the court that subrogation interests were again denied participation in negotiations for the amendment.

‘Additional Reserves Required’

In a July 20 press release announcing quarterly sales and earnings, AHP wrote that it “anticipates that additional reserves will be required” for the settlement. It said it was not possible at the time to determine the extent of the additional amounts, but said it believes the substantial majority of its ultimate liability will be covered by its previous charge against earnings.

The company in late June sold its Cyanamid Agricultural Products business for $3.8 billion and in early August said it would sell as much as $2.7 billion of its stock in Immunex Inc. Stock analysts have speculated that both moves were designed to raise money for diet drug litigation.

The Newark Star-Ledger reported July 21 that AHP had paid about $1.4 billion to settle diet drug lawsuits so far. It said analysts speculated that the company wants another $1 billion to $3 billion to add to its litigation reserves. It said the company told analysts in a conference call July 20 that the amount needed would be significantly less than $5 billion.

 

Motion For Judicial Notice
Of Ore. Verdict Withdrawn

PHILADELPHIA — The Fleming objectors sought to have the diet drug MDL court take judicial notice of the $29.2 million Oregon state court heart valve verdict before settling the case and withdrawing the motion (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, Sheila Brown, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-20593, E.D. Pa.; See July 2000, Page 4).

(Motions, Class Response in Section I. Document #35-000817-106.)

On July 27, one month after the Oregon jury returned a $29.2 million verdict against American Home Products Corp. in two mild heart valve cases, counsel for the so-called Fleming objectors filed a motion to take judicial notice of the verdict in anticipation of raising the issue of offensive collateral estoppel in the $3.75 billion AHP national diet drug class settlement.

“After the judgment is signed,” wrote the objectors in their motion, “AHP’s liability in the MDL as well as all other diet drug cases will be certain under the principle of offensive collateral estoppel.”

The objectors noted that prior to the Oregon verdict, only two diet drug cases against AHP went to verdict, one resulting in a $23 million verdict and another in a $150 million verdict. Both were quickly settled.

Counsel for the Fleming objectors wrote that they didn’t expect the Oregon case to settle before judgment was entered.

Class Counsel Response

In a response filed Aug. 4, class counsel said the Fleming objectors who opted out of the settlement have no standing to object and that the Oregon verdict is irrelevant to the MDL court’s determination of the fairness of settlement. They called the motion “another belated filing seeking to pad the evidentiary record” with “extraneous information.”

“While counsel for the Fleming objectors is to be congratulated on the size of the verdict he obtained, the verdict itself is inconsequential,” class counsel wrote. “It has no bearing on the fairness, adequacy or reasonableness of the settlement being presented.

“In fact,” they continued, “the Fleming objectors’ motion does not even suggest that the verdict is relevant to the settlement approval process.”

Class counsel noted that even if the Oregon verdict is reduced to a judgment, it is not yet a final order and is subject to appeal and reversal.

Case Settled, Motion Withdrawn

On Aug. 9, the Fleming objectors filed a motion to withdraw their motion, stating that the Oregon case settled and that judgment entered in the case would be vacated by agreement.

The Oregon case had been viewed as a test of the AHP national settlement. It involved mild heart valve damage claims tried before a reportedly conservative jury. Plaintiff attorneys said that under the AHP national settlement, the two Oregon plaintiffs would have qualified for payments of about $6,000 each.

George M. Fleming, James L. Doyle II and Rand P. Nolen of Fleming & Associates in Houston represent the objectors. Mike O’Brien of Houston is of counsel.

Class counsel are Arnold Levin and Michael D. Fishbein of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia; Gene Locks of Greitzer & Locks in Philadelphia; Sol H. Weiss of Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley in Philadelphia; Stanley Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley in Cincinnati; Charles R. Parker of Hill & Parker in Houston; and John J. Cummings of Cummings, Cummings & Dudenhefer in New Orleans.

Fairness Hearing Reopening
Sought To Admit Testimony
From Ore. Diet Drug Trial

PHILADELPHIA — The Fleming objectors on Aug. 9 asked the diet drug MDL court to reopen the Fairness Hearing on the American Home Products Corp. national diet drug class settlement in order to consider trial testimony by one of its experts in a successful state court trial (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, Sheila Brown, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-20593, E.D. Pa.; See July 2000, Page 4).

(Motion, Response in Section J. Document #35-000817-107.)

The Fleming objectors ask the court to consider the testimony of Dr. Grover M. Hutchins, who they describe as a world-renowned pathologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School. The objectors say Hutchins testified in June at a trial of two mild heart valve damage diet drug cases in Oregon (Juanita Baston v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 99-0306, Richard Wirt v. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-0307, Ore. Cir., Coos Co.; See July 2000, Page 4).

The objectors say Hutchins has authored more than 470 peer-reviewed publications and “has probably examined numerous Fenfluramine-damaged heart valves.” They said Hutchins testified about how fenfluramine results in plaque formation on the surface of heart valves and why the injury is permanent and progressive.

The objectors say no party to the AHP national settlement agreement can claim prejudice from Hutchins’ testimony because he was thoroughly cross-examined by AHP.

‘Enough Is Enough’

In response, class counsel objects to the motion as one of a series of attempts by the Fleming objectors to file post-hearing submissions in violation of court orders.

“While the Fleming objectors suggest that the interests of justice strongly support the acceptance of this testimony,” class counsel writes, “not a single example is articulated as to why justice would require such a result.”

Class counsel criticizes objectors’ counsel for using an “eleventh hour” “front” who “did not object to the settlement,” for failing to present evidence at the Fairness Hearing and for violating MDL court pretrial orders on post-hearing submissions.

While Hutchins may have been examined by AHP, class counsel says they were not party to the Oregon suit and had no opportunity to interrogate Hutchins, making his testimony to the MDL court hearsay.

“It would be unfair to class counsel for the Court to accept his testimony,” class counsel says.

In a footnote, class counsel adds: “the Court and the parties are left to speculate as to what fact or facts the Fleming objectors intend for us to derive from the testimony. In light of the Court’s admonition [to the Fleming objectors in previous court appearances], further grounds exists to reject the introduction of this testimony.”

George M. Fleming, James L. Doyle II and Rand P. Nolen of Fleming & Associates in Houston represent the objectors. Mike O’Brien of Houston is of counsel.

Class counsel are Arnold Levin and Michael D. Fishbein of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia, Gene Locks of Greitzer & Locks of Philadelphia, Sol H. Weiss of Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley in Philadelphia, Stanley Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley in Cincinnati, Charles R. Parker of Hill & Parker in Houston and John J. Cummings of Cummings, Cummings & Dudenhefer in New Orleans.

 

336,344 Responses
Received For Settlement

PHILADELPHIA — A new total of 336,344 responses have been received for the American Home Products Corp. (AHP) national diet drug class settlement as of Aug. 8, Interim Claims Administrator Gregory Miller reported Aug. 10 at an MDL court hearing.

In most cases, numbers increased dramatically from those reported in May. The numbers and the previous tallies are: registrations for benefits without claim for injuries, 108,572 (97, 544); registrations for the Accelerated Implementation Option (AIO), 164,291 (119,011); registration for matrix injury compensation benefits, 12,014 (12,523); and notification of initial opt-outs, 51,467 (44,423).

Miller said the numbers increased as his office opened and sorted through all mail, including letters in lieu of completed forms. He said some persons filled and mailed in all forms and others either failed to complete the forms or completed sections meant for doctors and lawyers.

Miller said he needed more time and a larger budget for personnel to process the claims.

The court sustained numerous objections to questions raised by George Michael Jamail of Reaud, Morgan & Quinn in Beaumont, Texas, about whether the forms were too complicated for a person without a college education to fill out. Jamail tried to make the point that more than 50 percent of the forms returned were apparently not understood by the claimants.

 

Class, AHP Negotiating
With Subrogation Objectors

PHILADELPHIA — Class Counsel and American Home Products Corp. (AHP) are negotiating with subrogation claimants, Class Counsel said Aug. 10 (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, Sheila Brown, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-20593, E.D. Pa.; See July 2000, Page 12).

Michael D. Fishbein of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia, Class Counsel and the chief negotiator for the national diet drug settlement, disclosed the settlement negotiations while being cross-examined by Cort Clayton of Dechert, Price & Rhoads of Philadelphia, counsel for Blue Cross Objectors.

 

AHP, PMC Seek Discovery
Into Foreign Medical Studies

PHILADELPHIA — Both American Home Products Corp. and the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee (PMC) are seeking discovery into foreign diet drug-related medical study information (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, E.D. Pa.).

(AHP Order in Section G. Document #35-000817-104. PMC Order in Section H. Document #35-000817-105.)

The diet drug MDL court on July 11 issued a letter of request to the French Ministry of Justice seeking documents from Lucien Abenhaim, M.D., general director of the Direction Générale de la Santée in Paris. Issued under the Hague Convention, AHP seeks “documents, data and databases,” including patient records, used by Abenhaim in the Surveillance of North American Pulmonary Hypertension (SNAPH), the results of which were published in the United States in the medical journal Chest.

AHP says SNAPH claims to have documented the association between the use of diet drugs and the development of primary pulmonary hypertension compared to secondary pulmonary hypertension.

Production was requested no later than Aug. 11.

PMC Letter Rogatory

On July 5, the MDL court issued a letter rogatory for the production of medical study-related information in the possession of Bruce M. McManus, M.D., Ph.D., of Vancouver, British Columbia. Sent to the Ministre de la Justice in Vancouver, the letter seeks all date used by McManus as lead researcher for the article “Nature and Pathenogenesis of Valve Injury by Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine, and Phentermine: Histochemical and Immunohistochemical Studies of Human Valves and Pharmacological Evaluation of Valvular Myofibroblasts in Culture,” or any similar study plan.

That information was likewise sought to be produced by Aug. 11.

 

Pharmacist Case Remanded,
But 12 Doctor Cases Remain
In Diet Drug MDL Court

PHILADELPHIA — The diet drug MDL court last month remanded a case back to Missouri state court but denied remand to Arkansas state courts in 12 other cases (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, E.D. Pa.).

In the Missouri case, plaintiff Janie Cavitt demonstrated that he had properly joined pharmacist William G. Pitts (Janie Cavitt v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 98-20679, E.D. Pa.).

(Order in Section E. Document #35-000817-102.)

Pharmacist Named

Cavitt, who suffers from primary pulmonary hypertension, named American Home Products Corp., its Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division, four drug stores and Pitts as defendants in a diet drug suit filed in March 1998 in Missouri Circuit Court in Jackson County. Cavitt alleged Pitts was the owner and chief pharmacist of a Kansas City, Mo., pharmacy where she had a prescription for Pondimin brand fenfluramine filled in July 1995.

Pitts, however, stated he retired as an active pharmacist in May 1995. Based on Pitts’ assertion, AHP claimed fraudulent joinder and removed the case to federal court and it was transferred to the MDL court. AHP twice opposed Cavitt’s motion to remand on that basis.

In October 1998, AHP advised Cavitt’s attorney that it learned that Pitts’ signature appears on documents and “his involvement was otherwise,” according to a July 6 MDL court order. The order said AHP stated it was unaware of the existence of the signed documents when it removed the case and opposed remand.

In August 1998, Cavitt had notified the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri that the case was improperly removed because Pitts as a Missouri citizen and under state law was liable as the seller of a defective product.

‘Indisputable Results’

In it July 9 remand, the MDL court said, “It seems plain that all the parties now agree that the indisputable results of the plaintiff’s discovery demonstrate the defendant Pitts did indeed sign a prescription form for the plaintiff on July 2, 1995.” It added that it was also clear that Pitts was a Missouri citizen and thus a forum defendant and that removal was precluded.

Pitts, the court said was properly joined and there was no fraudulent joinder.

Arkansas Remands Denied

In the 12 Arkansas cases, the MDL court ruled that some had missed that state’s strict two-year statute of limitations on claims against doctors when there was fraudulent joinder because of diversity.

In one case, plaintiff Gussie Gene Farris sued AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst, Carnick Laboratories Inc. and Perry Rothrock, M.D., in Arkansas state court. Farris claimed she and Rothrock were citizens of Tennessee (Gussie Gene Farris v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 00-20535, E.D. Pa.).

(Order in Section F. Document #35-000817-103.)

The defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming that Farris claimed to live in Mississippi but was a citizen of Tennessee.

The MDL court, ruling July 11, said that it is clear that Rothrock was fraudulently joined based on when Farris claimed she last received treatment. That date, the court said, is beyond the two-year statute of limitations for claims against prescribing physicians in Arkansas.

July 5 Order

The court made similar findings in five of 11 cases covered in a July 5 order (Joan Allison v. Richard Clark, No. 99-20768, E.D. Pa., and 10 other cases).

(Order in Section D. Document #35-000817-101.)

In a general finding involving all 11 cases, the MDL court found that Arkansas’ medical malpractice statute requires claims to be filed within two years after the cause of action accrues “and no other time.” State law allows no discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations, the court wrote, and the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply.

“Under present Arkansas law, the factual allegations asserted by the plaintiffs do not support recovery against the prescribing or treating physicians that are the focus of this opinion,” the court wrote.

The plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the statute of limitations as violating the privileges and immunities and equal protection clauses of the Arkansas and United States constitutions are unavailing, the court said, because the state Supreme Court has already rejected such appeals.

As a result, the court said, the joinder of the prescribing physicians in the diet drug cases was insubstantial, frivolous and fraudulent.

Remand Denied

In the remaining cases, the court denied remand because, in most cases, the plaintiffs were Tennessee citizens and the physician-defendants were Arkansas citizens.

Rik N. Siro of Blumer, Nally & Siro in Kansas City, Mo., and Amy Eskin of Hersh & Hersh in San Francisco represent Cavitt. Beverly G. Baughman, Harvey L. Kaplan and Scott W. Sayler of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Mo., represent AHP.

David P. Madden, Kelly Feyh and E. Dudley Smith of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith in Overland Park, Kan., represent Pitt.

Counsel for Farris and Joan Allison, the plaintiff in the lead case of the July 5 ruling, are Edward Blizzard of Blizzard & McCarthy in Houston, B. Michael Easley of Easley, Hicky, Cline & Hudson in Forrest City, Ark., and T. Robert Hill of Hill & Boren in Jackson, Tenn. Lyn Peeples Pruitt of Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard in Little Rock, Ark., and Tim Atkeson and David M. Orta of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., represent AHP.

 

Weight Loss Clinics
Not Indispensable Parties,
Joinder Denied In MDL

PHILADELPHIA — The diet drug MDL court recently denied three petitions to add weight loss clinics as defendants, finding they are not “indispensable” parties (Melodee Wesley v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 00-20291, James Fitzpatrick, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 99-20734, Milton Boyd v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 00-20299, E.D. Pa.).

Two petitions sought to add Pacific Family Clinic, described by the court as a Las Vegas diet drug weight loss center, and the third sought leave to add Geneva Medical Weight Control Inc., a Nevada weight control clinic, as defendants. All motions noted that the clinics are proper party defendants in numerous other state court cases by other plaintiffs.

The MDL court said a review of the allegations against all the defendants suggested that none are “an indispensable party.”

The court noted that joinder of the clinics would destroy diversity jurisdiction of the MDL court, but said it is clear that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by the denial to amend.

Will Kemp and William A. Lemkul of Harrison, Kemp & Jones in Las Vegas represent plaintiff Melodee Wesley. Daniel F. Polsenberg and Mario D. Balencia of Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy, Jemison & List in Las Vegas represent American Home Products Corp.

 

Part Of Interneuron’s
$2 Million Deposit Spent

PHILADELPHIA — The $2 million that Interneuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. deposited with the diet drug MDL court for its now-defunct limited fund settlement has been disbursed in part (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, Sharon Wish v. Interneuron Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 98-20594, E.D. Pa.; See July 2000, Page 17).

In June, Interneuron announced it was terminating the settlement, approval of which was denied by the court. The company then sought return of $2 million it placed on deposit with the court for the settlement, along with interest.

On July 28, the MDL court granted the motion. But on Aug. 2, the court vacated its earlier order because disbursements were made out of the $2 million and “there is no longer $2,000,000 left in the registry of the court.”

The court asked for a renewed motion to correct the amount to be returned to Interneuron. It did not state how much money was disbursed and how much remains.

Interneuron reported Aug. 14 that there were 2,500 diet drug lawsuit pending against it, an increase of 9 percent since the previous quarter.

 

Becnel Petitions MDL For
Settlement Attorney Fees

PHILADELPHIA — A Louisiana plaintiffs attorney has petition to intervene in the American Home Products Corp. national diet drug class settlement to stake a claim for common benefit attorneys’ fees (In Re: Diet Drugs [Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine] Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1203, Sheila Brown, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., No. 99-20593, E.D. Pa.).

The Law Office of Daniel E. Becnel Jr. in Reserve, La., filed a motion Aug. 7 for allowance to file a petition to intervene in the settlement. The firm claims it represents more than 1,000 diet drug plaintiffs, including many in federal courts and the MDL and some of whom have elected to participate in the settlement or who are class members.

‘Common Benefit’

The firm says it has the right to attorneys’ fees and expenses “because their work product has produced, and will continue to produce, a significant common benefit for Class Counsel for the members of the Brown class as a whole.”

The motion seeks fees and expenses under both Fund A, the medical monitoring fund, and Fund B, the injury compensation fund.

The firm says its motion is timely because the settlement agreement has been executed but has not received final approval by the MDL court. If not allowed to intervene now, the firm says that its ability to assert claims for common benefit attorneys’ fees “effectively ceases.”

In addition, the firm says its interests “are currently being inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit and by Class Counsel, and the current proposed settlement agreement makes no provision for awarding Becnel Attorneys any attorneys’ fees out of the proceeds of the settlement.”

“Indeed,” the motion continues, “Class Counsel, who are making claim to the same fees, have an adverse interest to Becnel Attorneys as to this issue.”

FRCP 24(b)

If the MDL court decides the firm is not entitled to intervention as a matter of right, the motion says it agues its right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).

The firm says its intervention will affect only the attorneys’ fee portion of the settlement and not the benefits portion.

At the bottom of the filing, a hand-printed insertion adds that the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee “presently” takes no position on the merits of this filing.

Although the principal of the firm, Daniel E. Becnel Jr., spoke in favor of the settlement at the May Fairness Hearing, his criticism of the management of the diet drug MDL litigation at a June meeting of Rezulin attorneys provoked angry shouts from both sides of the issue.

In December, a group of North Texas attorneys filed for compensation for their contributions to the litigation. Some individual attorneys have filed liens for their fees and some have petitioned to be relieved of paying the 9 percent common fund fee to the PMC because they say they used no PMC work product in settling their cases.

 

Del. High Court Affirms:
Fen-Phen Claims Within
Products Hazard Provision

WILMINGTON, Del. — A product hazard exclusion applies to underlying fen-phen suits, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed June 30. Application of the provision’s “arising out of” language is not negated when combination, warranty, misrepresentation and failure to warn claims also involve the products of others (EON Labs Manufacturing Inc. v. Reliance Insurance Co., et al., No. 417, 1999, Del. Sup.; See 7/27/99, Page 4).

(Opinion in Section A. Document #03-000718-101.)

At issue is coverage for underlying actions filed by people who have taken the diet drugs fenfluramine, phentermine and dexfenfluramine against manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Underlying plaintiffs allege negligent manufacture, marketing and distribution, failure to warn of the risks associated with taking the drugs, failure to recall, breach of implied warranties, conspiracy, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Eon had CGL coverage from Reliance Insurance Co. or its affiliate, United Pacific Insurance Co., from 1993 to 1998 that had products hazard exclusions. Eon had separate products hazard coverage through policies purchased from Steadfast Insurance Co. Under Eon’s policies, the limits of liability are reduced by the costs of defense. Further, the policies defend not only Eon, but also vendors with whom Eon had indemnity agreements or were added as additional insureds under the Steadfast policies.

Prior Ruling

A June 1, 1999, decision by the New Castle County Superior Court denied Eon summary judgment and held that Reliance has no duty defend. Reliance then moved for summary judgment based on the June 1 order and Eon sought certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Superior Court, in denying Eon’s request for certification of the interlocutory appeal, allowed discovery prior to its deciding Reliance’s summary judgment motion. On a motion for reargument, the trial court granted Reliance’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of the June 1, 1999, ruling, denying discovery and entering a final order.

Reliance’s products hazard exclusion indicates that insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage included within the products-completed operations hazard. The definition of the exclusion encompasses “all bodily injury . . . arising out of your product,” which is defined as “‘any . . . products . . . manufactured’ or ‘sold . . . by [ ] you’ including ‘warranties or representations . . . with respect to fitness . . . or use of your product, and . . . failure to provide warnings.’”

Because all the claims are related to the fact that Eon manufactured and distributed phentermine, “[I]t is clear that all the allegations against Eon in the various underlying complaints provided to the court come within the scope of the ‘arising out of’ language,” according to the trial judge. As there is no claim not wholly within the scope of the clause, Reliance has no duty to defend, the Superior Court held.

Clause Unambiguous

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that a fair reading of the underlying fen-phen complaints indicates those plaintiffs seek to impose liability on Eon due to the involvement of its drug, phentermine. The combination claims, therefore, are not claims seeking to hold Eon liable for injuries from companies’ products, according to the court.

The lower court also properly dealt with Eon’s argument that some of the fen-phen suits charge it with tortious conduct unrelated to any alleged defect in Eon’s product.

“This contention is based on the argument that the law requires that there be a defect in phentermine itself for the products hazard exclusion to apply,” the Supreme Court noted. “The Court correctly answered that contention on the ground that the fen-phen suits are based on the deleterious effects of the combination of phentermine with other drugs as well as the promotion of the combination, failure to warn, etc. Thus, the claims ‘arise out of’ Eon’s product just as they arise out of the products of others in the combination.”

The court also rejected Eon’s argument that insurance law principles require Reliance to defend the fen-phen suits as long as any one claim is covered. Clearly, the claims arise out of the fact that Eon’s phentermine is necessarily a part of the combination claims.

‘Meaningful Linkage’

“We agree, as did the Superior Court, with Reliance’s contention that had not Eon manufactured, promoted and sold phentermine it would not have been sued. We hold that if there is some meaningful linkage between the product and the third party claim, the ‘arising out of’ language unambiguously applies. That is plainly true here. Those suits all involved some meaningful linkage to Eon’s drug, phentermine,” the court concluded.

Reliance is represented by Jacob C. Cohn of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen in Philadelphia and Barry M. Klayman of Wolf Block’s Wilmington, Del., office.

Eon Labs Manufacturing is represented by George H. Seitz III of Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green in Wilmington, Del., and Thomas C. Papson, Daniel G. Jarcho and Todd A. Suko of McKenna & Cuneo in Washington, D.C.

 

Gene Mutation May Be
Linked To Family PPH

NEW YORK — A genetic mutation causes familial primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), researchers reported last month in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

The study, “Familial Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (Gene PPH1) Is Caused by Mutations in the Bone Morphogenetic Protein Receptor-II Gene,” was authored by 12 researchers, including Robyn J. Barst, M.D., a pediatric cardiologist who has testified as a PPH expert in diet drug litigation and at the Fairness Hearing for the AHP national diet drug class settlement.

While PPH is rare, the study notes that cases caused by etiologies such as fenfluramine and phentermine are more common than familial PPH.

The study found that the bone morphogenetic protein-signaling pathway is defective in patients with PPH and may be the pathway for familiar transmission of the disorder.

 

Stephen P. Lockman,
AHP Lead Counsel, Dies

BALTIMORE — Stephen P. Lockman of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., American Home Products Corp.’s lead counsel in the diet drug MDL, died July 15 in Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore of complications from an aortic aneurysm. He was 56.

Lockman was AHP’s chief negotiator for its proposed $3.75 billion national diet drug class settlement. He is credited with devising the medical monitoring benefits of the settlement agreement.

Lockman was stricken in June in Oregon, where a mild heart valve diet drug trial was being tried. He was treated in Oregon and transferred to Johns Hopkins.

Lockman was a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Maryland School of Law. He was a law clerk for former Judge Simon E. Sobeloff of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and then was legal counsel under former Assistant Attorney General William H. Rehnquist in the Justice Department.

Lockman joined Arnold & Porter in 1972 and became partner in 1978. He specialized in food, drug and medical device, product liability and general liability.

Lockman’s first wife died in 1986. He is survived by his second wife, two sons, two stepchildren and a brother.

 

AHP Denies Promoting
Pondimin, Withholding
Adverse Event Information

EUGENE, Ore. — American Home Products Corp. did not actively encourage use of its Pondimin brand fenfluramine or its Redux brand dexfenfluramine, company executives said in an interview published in the June 1 issue of Pharmacy Executive.

“We did not actively encourage that at all,” the trade publication quoted AHP President, Chairman and CEO John Stafford as saying. “There was essentially no promotion of Pondimin during its growth period. We were not encouraging any diet clinics or revolving doors with advertising, providing product, or anything. None of that was going on.”

The publication quoted Wyeth-Ayerst North America President Joseph Mahady as saying, “The perception that the company has somehow wantonly promoted this product has never been an issue, even in the most difficult venue — the courtroom. During the entire 1990s, we never even promoted Pondimin. There was never anything during the past three years that caused us or FDA to believe that the combination known as Phen-Fen was inappropriate. What people learned later on is one issue. But at the time sales were increasing, we weren’t promoting it. We had no sales force, no advertising, no bonus plans.”

Mahady is quoted as saying that Redux was actively promoted and that the vast majority of its use came from individual physician practices, with a small fraction from weight loss clinics.

“We haven’t had a journal ad, a launch speech, or a launch meeting videotape make their way into the courtroom,” he was quoted as saying. “Though I’m very disappointed by the side effect of Redux, I’m as proud today of the way we introduced Redux as I was at the time that we introduced it. I have no regrets. We marketed it in a very responsible way.”

Asked by the publication if the diet drug crisis changed AHP’s procedures, it quotes Mahady as saying the company wants to “further develop and tighten our procedures around adverse event reporting and monitoring. . . . Yet even though FDA found occasional procedural glitches, it did not find any withholding of information. So we learned that you can never, ever stop improving the adverse drug reports system and the scientific evaluation of those reports.”

 

AHP To Sell Off
Some Immunex Stock

MADISON, N.J. — After American Home Products Corp. denied it in June, Immunex Inc. announced Aug. 9 that AHP will reduce its 55 percent stake in Immunex Inc. by selling as much as $2.7 billion of Immunex stock (See July 2000, Page 20).

According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AHP and Immunex may sell as many as 70 million shares of Immunex stock.

On June 30, AHP substantially completed it previously announced sale of its Cyanamid Agricultural Products business to BASF Aktiengesellchaft for $3.8 billion.

 

AHP Suits Top 10,000

MADISON, N.J. — The number of diet drug lawsuits pending against American Home Products Corp. grew by 944, or almost 10 percent, over the past quarter, the company reported Aug. 14 in its Form 10-Q report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company reported 10,815 lawsuits as of Aug. 7, compared to 9,871 on May 8, the date of its last quarterly report.

 

NFL Player Indicted For
Illegally Obtaining Phentermine

DENVER — Denver Broncos linebacker Bill Romanowski was indicted Aug. 8 on four felony counts of fraudulently obtaining phentermine, the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post report.

The newspapers say Romanowski was charged with unlawful possession of phentermine, obtaining a controlled substance through fraud and deceit and two conspiracy charges.

Romanowski’s wife, Julie, faces related charges for allegedly obtaining phentermine meant for her husband. The couple’s doctor, Randall L. Snook, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully dispensing a controlled substance, saying he was trying to protect Romanowski’s privacy.

A friend of the couple, Loretta K. Johnson, pleaded guilty to conspiring to obtain phentermine from Snook for Romanowski. Julie Romanowski is awaiting trial.

 

Doctor’s Lawyers Say
Herbs Part Cause Of Death

VENTURA, Calif. — Attorneys for a plastic surgeon say the death of a patient was caused by her failure to disclose that she had taken painkillers and herbal supplements, the Ventura County Star newspaper reported last month.

A woman who had undergone breast augmentation and liposuction in the office of a plastic surgeon died after going into a coma. Her family sued the doctor for malpractice.

 

Mealey’s Propulsid
Conference Scheduled
Sept. 15 In Philadelphia

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. — Mealey Publications Inc. will sponsor Mealey’s Propulsid Litigation Conference at the Westin Philadelphia Hotel on Sept. 25.

Session topics will include medical use of Propulsid and other drugs available for the same conditions, side effects associated with Propulsid-arrhythmias, the role of the FDA, potential for malpractice suits, the MDL and what to expect, viability of medical monitoring claims, class actions, how to create a chronology of events, package insert warnings vs. contents of medical literature, and more.

Mealey’s has assembled this program with the help of an advisory board comprised of John Restaino of Lopez Hodes Restaino Milman Skikos & Polos in Newport Beach, Calif., Paul Rheingold of Rheingold Valet Rheingold & Schkolnik in New York and Bucky Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed in Minneapolis.

CLE credits will be available from all states with mandatory requirements.

For more information on topics and speakers or to register, call the Conference Department at 1-800-MEALEYS or (610) 768-7800 or e-mail us at seminars@mealeys.com.

 

Mealey’s Rezulin
Litigation Conference
Returns In October

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. — Since its withdrawal from the market in March, the diabetes drug Rezulin has generated a flood of new litigation.

Mealey Publications Inc. is sponsoring Mealey’s Rezulin Litigation Conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Phoenix on Oct. 23 and 24.

This conference will provide an in-depth review of alleged liver and cardiac damage associated with Rezulin, an inside look at the regulatory history, and insights from expert litigators on trial tactics, discovery and the MDL.

Program Highlights

• Science and medicine. Five sessions will focus on liver disease and the possible relationship of cardiac arrhythmias with Rezulin, with an in-depth look at the relevant science, how to read medical studies and how to apply them to a case.

• Regulatory background. John Gueriguian, M.D., who was removed from the original FDA Rezulin research team after voicing his concerns about the drug’s release, will give an inside look into the research and development of Rezulin during his tenure at the FDA.

• Update on the Rezulin MDL. The inside track on the latest MDL developments from Arnold Levin, co-chair of the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee of the Rezulin MDL.

• Preparing for trial. Experienced litigators walk step-by-step through the pretrial process — from interpreting medical literature to building a mass tort team in a plaintiff’s office, deposing witnesses and selecting experts — and give a status report on the coordinated state and national discovery process.

• Jurisdictional issues in Rezulin litigation.

• Medical malpractice claims.

• A historical perspective on Warner-Lambert.

• The learned intermediary defense.

• A mock opening statement in a Rezulin trial.

Conference chairman is John M. Restaino of Lopez Hodes Restaino Milman Skikos & Polos in Newport Beach, Calif., whose firm specializes in various complex litigations including medical malpractice, product liability and pharmaceutical drug liability, and has been involved in Rezulin litigation since 1998.

Faculty

The faculty is comprised of John Baker of Bragg & Baker in Denver; Roger Brosnahan of Brosnahan Joseph & Suggs in Minneapolis; Barry Fisher of Fleishman Fisher & Moest in Los Angeles; George Fleming of Fleming & Associates in Houston; John Gueriguian, M.D., of PharmaGenesis in Rockville, Md.; Andrew Klein, M.D., of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore; and Arnold Levin of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia.

Also, Zoe Littlepage of Littlepage & Associates in Houston; Ramon Lopez of Lopez Hodes Restaino Milman Skikos & Polos in Newport Beach, Calif.; Jacqueline Maher, M.D., of the General Liver Center in San Francisco; David Matthews of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Matthews & Friend in Houston; J. Michael Papantonio of Levin Middlebrooks Thomas Mitchell Green Echsner Proctor & Papantonio in Pensacola, Fla.; Michelle Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel in Washington, D.C.; Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson in Newport Beach, Calif.; Thomas Smith of the Plaintiff’s Management Committee for fen-phen litigation in Philadelphia; C.F. “Jeb” Wait, J.D., M.D., of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Matthews & Friend in Houston; and Michael Williams of Williams Dailey & O’Leary in Portland, Ore.

CLE credits will be available from all states with mandatory requirements.

For more information on topics and speakers or to register, please call our Conference Department at 1-800-MEALEYS (632-5397) or (610) 768-7800, e-mail us at awalsh@mealeys.com, or visit our Web site at http://www.mealeys.com/sem_agen.html#REZ.

 

Mealey’s Asbestos
Litigation Conference
To Be Held In Chicago

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. — Mealey Publications Inc. will sponsor Mealey’s Asbestos Litigation Conference 2000 Sept. 14 and 15 at the Fairmont Hotel in Chicago. Also sponsoring this conference is the American Bar Association Tort and Insurance Practice Section.

This conference brings together the key players for a balanced view on the latest developments in asbestos litigation. Plaintiff and defense attorneys, medical experts, corporate representatives and sitting judges share the latest research and current trends in this ever-changing area of litigation.

Conference co-chairs are Steven Kazan of Kazan, McClain, Edises, Simon & Abrams in Oakland, Calif., and Robert Riley of Schiff Hardin & Waite in Chicago.

Session titles include: Asbestos Litigation in the Year 2000; Overview of the SV40 Controversy; Mesothelioma — Developments in Treatment Modalities; Recent Developments in Spiral CT Scanning; The Newest Medical Studies; Trends in Tobacco Litigation and the Impact on Asbestos; Asbestos Settlements; Judicial Panel Discussion; Point/Counterpoint — the MDL; Appellate Rulings in the Last Year; and New Bankruptcy Developments.

The faculty is Fred Baron and Brent Rosenthal of Baron & Budd in Dallas; David Bernick of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago; Jean Bertrand of Morgenstein & Jubelirer in San Francisco; Madelyn Chaber of Wartnick Chaber Harowitz Smith & Tigerman in San Francisco; David Cugell of the Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago; Timothy Eble of Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole in Charleston, S.C.; Gordon Gamsu of New York Hospital, Cornell Medical Center; and Judge Harry Hanna of the State of Ohio Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland.

Also, Elihu Inselbuch of Caplin & Drysdale in New York; Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ken Kawaichi in Oakland, Calif.; William Mahoney of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney in Chicago; Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Richard Rombro; Keerti Shah of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore; Maura Abeln Smith of Owens Corning in Toledo, Ohio; and Scott Swanson of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

CLE credits will be available from all states with mandatory requirements.

For more information on topics and speakers or to register, please call our Conference Department at 1-800-MEALEYS (632-5397) or (610) 768-7800, e-mail us at seminars@mealeys.com, or visit our Web site at http://www.mealeys.com/sem_agen.html#ASB.

© Copyright 2000 Mealey Publications, Inc.

 

Click to return to Mealey's Home Page