Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

After 9 Years Janssen Settles South Carolina's Risperdal Case For $124 Million

Legal Newsline
Annie HuntMar. 14, 2016, 12:28pm


COLUMBIA, S.C. (Legal Newsline) — South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson announced last month that he and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals have finally reached a settlement in the state's Risperdal case, ending a nine-year legal battle. 

In a letter dated Feb. 16, Wilson informed Spartanburg County Clerk M. Hope Blackley that the defendant will pay $124,324,700 in satisfaction of the settlement to South Carolina, which alleged the illegal promotion of the anti-psychotic prescription drug for unapproved uses. 

“We are pleased to have this matter put to bed. This landmark case has established guidelines that will be used for years to come,” Wilson said in a statement sent to Legal Newsline

After South Carolina initially won in 2011 in the state’s 7th Judicial Circuit Court, Janssen began appealing the original $327 million judgment.
Representing Wilson's office are Bailey Perrin Bailey of Houston; Harrison, White, Smith & Coggins of Spartanburg; and John Simmons of Columbia, S.C. 

“This resolution puts this long and difficult legal process, lasting more than nine years, to rest and avoids further protracted litigation," Wilson said. "South Carolina has been and will continue to be known as a business-friendly state where consumers are protected."

The crux of the lawsuit argues that the company was using aggressive marketing techniques to persuade doctors to prescribe the drug to their patients, including children with disabilities and elderly dementia patients. The company sent more than 7,000 letters to doctors, allegedly overstating the efficacy of Ridperdal without FDA approval. 

The final settlement comes shortly after the Washington Legal Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief earlier this year to the U.S. Supreme Court to support overturning what the state Supreme Court lowered to a $124 million verdict in 2015.
Richard Samp, chief counsel at the WLF, spoke to Legal Newsline after filing the brief and claimed that the letters were not adequately proven to have been fraudulent, that the ruling was excessive and an infringement of Eighth Amendment rights.
Thank You Ms Hunt and Legal Newsline


Janssen and JNJ's Eighth Amendment rights?

Dear Mr Samp and WLF;



This, is 8th Amendment prohibited Cruel and Unusual punishment. But Janssen got the dirty end of the stick in South Carolina?

You see folks, it Does matter who you vote for, despite the fact that you think, and certainly not without cause, that they're All scoundrels.

Who do you think puts judges on the bench?



Monday, January 11, 2016

SCOTUS Denies J&J's Final Appeal of South Carolina Risperdal Verdict: PAY UP, $124 Million

fiercepharma
January 11, 2016 | By 


Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) fell short Monday in its final effort to escape a Risperdal marketing penalty in South Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up J&J's last appeal in the case, putting the company on the hook for a $124 million penalty.

J&J had cited the Eighth Amendment in arguing against the penalty, saying it qualified as an "excessive fine." As Reuters notes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had backed the drugmaker in seeking Supreme Court review.

J&J's Janssen unit has been fighting South Carolina's deceptive trade practices court win since 2011, when a jury ordered the drugmaker to pay $327 million for Risperdal marketing violations. The company succeeded in lowering the judgment twice, first to $136 million and then, last year, to the final $124 million.

The lawsuit centered on promotional materials Janssen used to market the antipsychotic drug. Key to the case was a letter sent to South Carolina physicians, which overstated Risperdal's benefits compared with other drugs in its class and downplayed side effects, the jury found. The trial court judge ordered Janssen to pay about $4,000 for each of the more than 7,000 letters mailed.

The original $327 million judgment dwarfed other similar rulings in drug-marketing lawsuits, including sizable decisions and settlements in other Risperdal-related litigation, but it fell far short of a $1.2 billion verdict in Arkansas. The Arkansas Supreme Court struck down that judgment in March 2014, and the company later negotiated a settlement of $7.5 million.

The South Carolina decision survived that state's top court in a ruling last year, in which Justice John Kittredge backed the decision at trial, but lowered the $327 million penalty to $136 million.
In affirming the judgment against the company, Kittredge echoed the trial judge's "profit-at-all-costs" characterization of Janssen's marketing efforts. "Janssen's desire for market share and increased sales knew no bounds, leading to its egregious violation of South Carolina law," Kittredge wrote in the February 2015 ruling.

Janssen had argued that it did not intentionally deceive doctors with the now-notorious "Risperdal letter" that has featured in several state-court lawsuits. The drugmaker also contended that South Carolina's attorney general didn't prove patients were actually harmed by the drug. It was on that point that Kittredge lowered the judgment.

The "Risperdal letter" lawsuits compose only part of the mountain of litigation J&J has fought over the antipsychotic drug. The company agreed to pay $2.2 billion in a marketing settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and a group of states.

And the litigation isn't over yet. The company now faces more than 1,000 lawsuits over Risperdal's ability to trigger breast development in boys. J&J lost the first court battle last February, as a Philadelphia jury ordered J&J to pay almost $2.5 million to a young man who developed breasts while using Risperdal. In November, another jury awarded $1.75 million in a similar case.
- see the Reuters story


Thank You Ms Staton and Fierce Pharma.



J&J had cited the Eighth Amendment in arguing against the penalty, saying it qualified as an "excessive fine." 

Un real. J&J crying about the 8th Amendment. 


but Tardive Dyskinesia isn't excessive, nor does it constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment, for committing a thought crime.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

South Carolina Supreme Court Calls Janssen's Risperdal Defense: "If We Lied, Nobody Fell For It."

jdsupra business advisor
by

Lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies generally center on product-liability claims. A new trend in pharma cases, however, is to include a different kind of claim: a claim for unfair trade practices.
A recent decision from the South Carolina Supreme Court addresses unfair-trade-practices claims against a pharma company. In State ex rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court held that representations about the drug Risperdal by Janssen Pharmaceuticals (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) violated South Carolina’s analogue to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Applying that South Carolina statute, the court sustained a 136-million-dollar award against Janssen.
This post reviews that decision—one that reveals the potency of unfair-trade-practices doctrine.
[SNIP]


No Actual-Injury Requirement for a State Plaintiff
In the South Carolina Supreme Court, Janssen argued that the state’s unfair-trade-practices claims failed as a matter of law, because the state had not shown that any unfair or deceptive conduct had an adverse impact within the state.
The supreme court disagreed. It held that in South Carolina, only private plaintiffs have to show an actual injury in an unfair-trade-practices claim. The state had the burden to show that Janssen’s statements had a tendency to deceive, but it did not have to show that any readers changed their behavior based on these statements.
The court called Janssen’s absence-of-injury argument “nothing more than an ‘if we lied, nobody fell for it’ defense.” Rejecting that defense, the supreme court held that the state’s unfair-trade-practices claims were viable despite the lack of a showing of actual injury.
[SNIP]
Thank You Mr Sawchak, Ellis & Winters, & JDSupra Business Advisor.

But then, what more would you Expect from Janssen, considering what you get from Govt?



A U.S, Govt. decision/non-intervention regarding the Free Speech Rights of drug co. sales reps.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

South Carolina House Passes Bill Criminalizing Enforcement of ObamaCare

weaselzippers:
South Carolina House Passes Bill Criminalizing Enforcement of ObamaCare




The countdown to Tingles declaring the state of South Carolina racist has begun.
Via Raw Story:
The South Carolina state House on Wednesday passed a so-called “nullification” bill that is declares President Barack Obama’s health care reform law to be “null and void,” and criminalizes it’s implementation. 
The South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act was passed by a state House vote of 65 to 39. The bill intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.” 
The measure would allow the state Attorney General “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm with the implementation of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 
Any South Carolina taxpayer who is forced to pay a penalty due to the federal health care mandate would be able to deduct the full amount of the penalty from their state taxes.
Thank You Zip.

As an indication of just How heated opposition to this gargantuan pile of fraud called ObamaCare actually Is, contrast the SC House and Governor's pro nullification position with the Heritage Foundation's analysis of nullification.

Nullification Is Unconstitutional

So, is nullification of an Unconstitutional Law also Unconstitutional?

Interesting times are in the offing.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

J&J Fights $327M Risperdal Verdict, Saying No One Was Harmed

Fierce Healthcare has;
J&J Fights $327M Risperdal Verdict, Saying No One Was Harmed
March 22, 2013 | By 


South Carolina Circuit Judge Roger Couch took a particularly creative approach when he levied a $327 million penalty against Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) in the state's Risperdal case. A jury found J&J hid health issues and substantially overstated the benefits of the schizophrenia drug in marketing to doctors in the state. So he assessed the company $300 for every sample box it gave out and a $4,000 penalty for each "Dear Doctor" letter it published. J&J has now complained to the South Carolina Supreme Court that the penalties are just wrong. 

The company's Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary has gone to the South Carolina Supreme Court, asking that the penalty be thrown out, arguing that it did not intentionally deceive physicians and that the state never showed any patients were actually harmed by the drug, the Associated Press reports. The court's ruling is not expected for several months, and it is only one of many on which J&J is waiting.

The company last year agreed to pay $181 million to settle litigation with 36 states and the District of Columbia over Risperdal marketing, a sum that seems very reasonable compared to some of the jury awards that have been assessed. There was the whopping $1.2 billion award in Arkansas, as well as a $258 million penalty in Louisiana. The company is appealing both of those. There were several reports last year that the company was nearing a settlement with federal authorities that might top $2 billion, but that deal has yet to materialize.

Meanwhile, the company is also battling through individual cases that allege health issues. In October it settled 5 pending cases for undisclosed sums, dodging the chance that former FDA Commissioner David Kessler would be allowed to testify against the company. He was prepared to say J&J broke the law by promoting the drug for use in children.

- here's the AP story


Here's Former Commissioner Kessler's Deposition:



"Kessler's report was posted to the Court of Common Pleas electronic docket system late Wednesday in four pieces, as part of the J&J motion to preclude him from testifying. The pieces are all PDFs and links are hereherehere and here."



Here's the Slip opinion from SC's Justice Crouch characterizing the Risperdal Gang, as he ordered them to Pay $327 Million to the State, as "Detestable".
Below, we've previously shared out that particular 'Detestable'.



"this Court finds the actions of the Defendants, upon this audience, to be detestable."
"Annual Sales of Risperdal worldwide per annual reports of Johnson & Johnson, Inc.
1994: $0.172 Billion
1995: $0.343 Billion
1996: $0.502 Billion
1998: $0.588 Billion
1999: $0.892 Billion
2000: $1.083 Billion
2001: $1.845 Billion
2002: $2.146 Billion
2003: $2.512 Billion
2004: $3.05 Billion
2005: $3.552 Billion
2006: $4.180 Billion
2007: $4.697 Billion
2008: $1.309 Billion
2009: $1.425 Billion
2010: $1.50 Billion
Total for the period: $29.796 Billion
Testimony at trial indicated that the profit margin for sales of Risperdal was 97% or $28.90 Billion for the period of 1994-2010"
And there's more 'Detestable' from J&J and their Risperdal gang. There's Always More Detestable. Like this Detestable, where 40 State AGs Were, past tense, looking into Joining the Detestable fray, which Never should have been Allowed, BY DC's FDA, to have Detestabled in the First place:
After J&J Failed 48% of 161 FDA Inspections in One Year
Also from Mad In America:


But the J&J/Risperdal gang says "No One Was Harmed".

And since so much of Risperdal's Courtroom hub-bub has revolved around Off Label Marketing:

DEPOSED: Risperdal, Prolactin and Gynecomastia: The Gorsky Transcript Pt III

Friday, November 18, 2011

Congress Invests: The Fix Is In, For Pfizer And JNJ

Open Secrets has;

A ranking of the Investments members of the US Congress made for Their Own enrichment.



Pfizer/Zoloft ranks number 6, and J&J/Risperdal ranks number 8

Most Popular Congressional Investments, 2010

Just like many Americans, our elected officials like to play it safe with their investments, betting largely on blue chip companies across diverse industry groups. The chart below shows the most common assets among all members of Congress who served during all or part of 2010, ranked by the number of members invested in them, with breakdowns by party.

Select a year:

RankOrganizationTotal
Investors
Democrat
Investors
Republican
Investors
1General Electric944648
2Procter & Gamble743341
3Cisco Systems723339
4Microsoft Corp702842
5Bank of America682840
6Pfizer Inc612734
7AT&T Inc572037
8Intel Corp542430
8Johnson & Johnson541835
8Verizon Communications542232
11Exxon Mobil531439
12Apple Inc512130
13Coca-Cola Co492227
13JPMorgan Chase & Co491930
15PepsiCo Inc472225
16Wells Fargo451925
17Berkshire Hathaway431825
18Walt Disney Co411922
19Home Depot401624
20Hewlett-Packard381523
20McDonald's Corp381721
22Merck & Co371423
22Citigroup Inc371522
24Abbott Laboratories351124
25Wal-Mart Stores311219
263M Co301614
26Oracle Corp301317
28Apache Corp291019
29Qualcomm Inc281216
30Google Inc271017
31Ford Motor Co26818
31Conocophillips26719
31Goldman Sachs26917
31Time Warner261412
35United Technologies25916
35Chevron Corp25817
35Bristol-Myers Squibb25718
38BP24222
38Amgen Inc24915
38Duke Energy241014
38Emerson24816
38Kraft Foods241014
38Teva Pharmaceutical Industries241212
44Schlumberger Ltd23716
44EMC Corp231310
44Comcast Corp231211
44Altria Group23617
48CVS/Caremark Corp22715
49Devon Energy21615
49Caterpillar Inc21813

Note: Senate, House, Executive branch and Judicial rules require the disclosure of items belonging to the filer's spouse and/or dependent children. When present, those items are displayed on this page and are included in all calculations throughout this section.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.


Thank You Very Much, Open Secrets, and a hat tip to Ms Tracy Staton at Fierce Pharma for the heads up. And what is it that Congress is Buying, for their Own portfolios?

Allen Jones Full Whistleblower Report pg 23:

"Journalist Robert Whitaker, via the Freedom of Information Act gained access to FDA data on

the drug trials for the Atypicals Risperdal, Seroqual and Zyprexa. Whitaker found that:

1. One in every 145 patients who entered the trials died, and yet those deaths were never

mentioned in the scientific literature.

2. The trials were structured to favor the Atypicals and most of the study reports were

discounted by the FDA as being biased.

3. One in every thirty-five patients in Risperdal trials experienced a serious adverse event, defined by the FDA as a life threatening event or one that required hospitalization.

4. Twenty-two percent of patients in Zyprexa trials suffered serious adverse events

5. The Atypicals did not demonstrate superior effectiveness or safety over Typical

antipsychotics.

It is important to note that a drug company does not have to prove that a new drug is safer or

more effective than an old drug to gain FDA approval. Essentially, the manufacturer has to

demonstrate that the drug is proved to yield better results than placebo in a statistically

significant number of patients in short-term trials (6-8 weeks).

And then there's This revolting admission on the 2005 Risperdal FDA Label:

Suicide attempt was associated with discontinuation in 1.2% of RISPERDAL!-treated patients compared to 0.6% of placebo patients, but, given the almost 40-fold greater exposure time in RISPERDAL! compared to placebo patients, it is unlikely that suicide attempt is a RISPERDAL!-related adverse event (see PRECAUTIONS). Discontinuation for extrapyramidal symptoms was 0% in placebo patients, but 3.8% in active-control patients in the Phase 2 and 3 trials.


Yeah, a 100% Increase in actual Suicide Attempts, but it's probably not the drug which is Inflicted/Marketed as a Suicide Preventative, ......... .

You might also want to read through some State Attorneys General Lawsuits Filed against the makers of J&J's Risperdal, because you gotta figure those State Attorneys Generals didn't just rip the allegations contained therein out of their Ears before they took J&J's Risperdal into Court.

State of Texas, 3rd Amended Petition

State of Arkansas

Commonwealth Of Massachusetts

And then there's this slip opinion from Justice Crouch in South Carolina, characterizing the Risperdal Gang, as he ordered them to Pay $327 Million to the State, as "Detestable".


Below, we've previously shared out that particular 'Detestable'.


"this Court finds the actions of the Defendants, upon this audience, to be detestable."
"Annual Sales of Risperdal worldwide per annual reports of Johnson & Johnson, Inc.
1994: $0.172 Billion
1995: $0.343 Billion
1996: $0.502 Billion
1998: $0.588 Billion
1999: $0.892 Billion
2000: $1.083 Billion
2001: $1.845 Billion
2002: $2.146 Billion
2003: $2.512 Billion
2004: $3.05 Billion
2005: $3.552 Billion
2006: $4.180 Billion
2007: $4.697 Billion
2008: $1.309 Billion
2009: $1.425 Billion
2010: $1.50 Billion

Total for the period: $29.796 Billion

Testimony at trial indicated that the profit margin for sales of Risperdal was 97% or $28.90 Billion for the period of 1994-2010"
And there's more 'Detestable' from J&J and their Risperdal gang. There's Always More Detestable. Like this Detestable, where 40 State AGs are looking into Joining the Detestable fray, which Never should have been Allowed, BY DC's FDA, to have Detestabled in the First place:


After J&J Failed 48% of 161 FDA Inspections in One Year



And Pfizer's Zoloft? Google Zoloft for an image search.




Are you going to Pay Attention from now until Election Day?

Are you going to call your current Elected Representatives and ask them What, they think they're doing?

Or perhaps you'd like to MAIL Them the State Attorney General Legal Filings, and ask them What in the Hell they think they're doing.



Thank You 60 Minutes.

Washington DC: The town that started out as a swamp and grew into a sewer.