Follow him on 
I have blogged about this verdict already today, but new details are beginning to emerge.
The $2.5 million (US) award granted by a Philadelphia jury in a verdict handed down this morning against GlaxoSmithKline in a lawsuit over its anti-depressant Paxil is more than twice what the plaintiff was seeking.
Michelle David, suing on behalf of her son Lyam Kilker, who turns four next week, had sought $1.2 million to cover future medical costs and other damages. The settlement granted by the jury in a 10-2 vote matches that awarded five years ago when the drug giant agreed to pay the state of New York $2.5 million to resolve claims that it suppressed research showing that Paxil may increase suicide risk in young people.
David's lawyer, Sean Tracey, hailed the verdict afterward, saying it was the first to "get a jury saying the drug caused the injury."
Business analysts following the company, however, were not so sure.
“I don’t think the link is proven, so there will likely be collective settlements which will keep costs low,” Navid Malik, an analyst at Matrix Corporate Capital in London with a buy rating on the stock, said in an e-mail. “If this was a threat to GSK, the first verdict might have been 100 times greater.”
Glaxo American depositary receipts, each representing two ordinary shares, fell 5 cents to $39.73 at 1:07 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, after dropping as much as 1.4 per cent when the verdict was announced. Glaxo fell 14 pence, or 1.1 per cent, to 1,246.5 pence in London.
I have yet to see the full decision by the jury, but Bloomberg is quoting it as saying that the jury found that Glaxo officials “negligently failed to warn” the doctor treating Lyam’s mother about Paxil’s risks and concluded the medicine was a “factual cause” of the child’s heart defects.
On the other hand, the jury also found that Glaxo’s handling of the drug wasn’t “outrageous,” meaning the family couldn’t seek punitive damages against the British drug company.
In a statement after the verdict came down the company said it disagreed with the decision and will appeal.
GlaxoSmithKline disagrees with the verdict and will appeal. While we sympathize with Lyam Kilker and his family, the scientific evidence does not establish that exposure to Paxil during pregnancy caused his condition. Very unfortunately, birth defects occur in three to five per cent of all live births, whether or not the mother was taking medication during pregnancy.
I have called Glaxo for more comment, but have not yet heard back.
Glaxo spokesman Kevin Colgan called and read me the statement quoted above.
This is a look at how drug dangers are handled. One person gets a settlement and the case serves not as a precedent claim but rather as a precedent warning... It could have been a class action but this win sees to that.
Payouts like this are like a record deal on American Idol. A member of the public is scouted for something: a singing talent or a deformed baby and something is made out of it for another's profit.
News media advertize all this. Ethicists will follow up with "well we can't stop making all medicines now, can we?"
Bottom line is that the mother should not have taken the drug. She should have known that the human body is susceptible to foreign ingredients let alone a fetus. You have to be really gullible to not have doubts.
She got lucky however with "Glaxo Idol." They've likely been wating for someone like her to show up. Now they are off the hook because "people have been informed in a mea culpa way."
Or they can appeal on the ethical grounds of "where would we be without drugs?" Great stuff. Win-win.
Posted by: affab | October 14, 2009 at 06:50 AM