The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

To a drug manufacturer, having concerns about breast-cancer risks of Prempro in 1991 does not mean it had to do anything or tell anybody. To a jury in Pennsylvania the manufacturer’s silence and inaction means the conduct was malicious, wanton, willful, or oppressive, or showed reckless indifference.

Wyeth Loses Prempro Suit

Pharmaceutical giant Wyeth was ordered by a Pennsylvania state jury to pay $1.5 million in compensatory damages to an Arkansas woman and her husband who held the company’s hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drug Prempro responsible for the woman’s breast cancer. Citing conduct by Wyeth that was “malicious, wanton, willful, or oppressive, or showed reckless indifference,” the jury has also begun deliberating on possible punitive damages to be tacked on. However, Judge Myrna Field ruled Tuesday that the company should not be held responsible for punitive damages a decision that may be overturned in the appeals process.

Mary Daniel, 60, of Hot Springs, Arkansas, began taking Prempro, a drug that combines estrogen and progestin, to treat the symptoms of menopause. Daniel started her therapy in late 1999 and was diagnosed with breast cancer in July of 2001. Her attorneys argued that Wyeth had known for decades about Prempro’s breast-cancer risk factor in postmenopausal women, but acted negligently by failing to provide adequate warnings or conduct sufficient testing.

Last week, in a separate Prempro trial underway in Little Rock, Arkansas, Wyeth chairman and CEO Robert Essner delivered a videotaped deposition in which he said the company was “concerned” about the breast-cancer risks associated with Prempro as far back as 1991. Wyeth is facing more than 5,000 lawsuits with regard to Prempro and its other HRT drug, Premarin. This is the third Prempro trial to reach a verdict. In one trial, an Arkansas woman’s case was dismissed by the jury; in the second, a Pennsylvania couple was initially awarded a $1.5 million jury judgment before a mistrial was declared in October. (A new trial is in progress in Philadelphia.)

Comments are closed.

Of Interest