Attorney Daily - Your source for the most important legal news

On October 7, 2008, Eli Lilly & Co. announced a $62 million settlement that will pay 32 states and Washington, D.C., to resolve an investigation into the company’s marketing practices for its popular antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa.

Attorneys general from several states had accused Lilly of marketing Zyprexa for off-label uses and inadequately disclosing the drug’s side effects to health care providers, the same claims made in reams of other litigation against the drug maker.

Lilly was accused of marketing the drug for pediatric care, for use at a high dose and for the treatment of dementia, according to a statement from the Indiana attorney general’s office. Doctors are free to prescribe drugs for uses not approved by the FDA, but drug companies cannot market them for those situations.

The company did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement.

This settlement will be divided among the states and the district based on population, said Greg Zoeller, Indiana’s chief deputy attorney general. Indiana, for instance, will receive $1.6 million.

Lilly also agreed to several mandates that will last until 2014, well beyond Zyprexa’s patent expiration in 2011. The company agreed to avoid making false, misleading or deceptive claims about the drug and not to promote it outside FDA-approved uses.

The drug maker also agreed to give its medical staff, not the marketing staff, ultimate responsibility for approving the content in “all medical letters and medical references regarding Zyprexa,” according to the Indiana attorney general’s statement.

“The one thing that’s really key here is they’ve agreed to have a much more transparent system,” Zoeller said.

However, Lilly spokesman Phil Belt said many of the items his company agreed to were things it either already did or was in the process of doing.

“There’s no admission of wrongdoing, there’s no dramatic changes in the way we’re doing business,” he said.

He said Lilly agreed to the settlement to avoid being wrapped up in litigation and other things it deems counterproductive to drug development.

“We think its better for Lilly, better for patients, better for prescribers to have this kind of activity behind us,” he said.

The states involved in the settlement are Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.

Zyprexa rang up $4.8 billion in sales last year. But Lilly also has settled more than 31,000 product liability claims against the drug since 2005, shelling out more than $1.1 billion in the process.

Last year, Lilly paid $15 million to settle a lawsuit with the state of Alaska in March. The drug maker still faces litigation with 11 states, generally involving consumer protection issues or Medicaid reimbursement. These cases are separate from the settlement announced.

Those states include Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.

The U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also is investigating Zyprexa marketing.

A group of insurance companies, unions and others are suing Lilly for billions of dollars, saying the drug maker charged too much for Zyprexa and marketed the drug for off-label uses. A federal judge has recommended that Lilly settle that case and last month granted the plaintiffs class-action status.

All told, Lilly still faces an estimated 185 product liability lawsuits involving 1,185 plaintiffs, according to its latest quarterly statement.

On September 26, 2008, public health officials began informing former employees of a Fremont manufacturing plant that they might have been exposed to asbestos. Workers of the Flintkote Co. were exposed to low levels of asbestos between 1967 and 1979, according to a report from the Federal Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry.

Those who lived with Flintkote workers during those 12 years also were at risk because employees could have carried asbestos fibers home in their hair or clothing, the report said.

Former workers and their family members may contact Maria Teran-MacIver, the agency’s communication specialist, at 770-488-0720.

Asbestos is the name given to a group of naturally occurring minerals whose long, thin fibers, when inhaled, can become lodged in the lungs. Over time, the fibers can accumulate, causing scarring and inflammation, and possibly cancer.

The fibers, which are resistant to heat and fire, were used in building materials for decades before it was learned that they were harmful to health. Flintkote used materials containing asbestos to make fire-resistant wall boards.

The company went bankrupt in 2004 because of asbestos-related lawsuits. The former Flintkote site, at 27975 Shinn St., now is owned by United States Gypsum as a reloading and distribution center, according to the report.

It also is possible that between 1967 and 1979, dust and asbestos fibers were released into the air within a few blocks of the facility.

Cancer records and death certificate information for the neighborhood reviewed by state health officials showed “scattered evidence” that the number of deaths associated with asbestos exposure is higher than expected. However, these record reviews are an imperfect tool for determining whether asbestos from the facility made people sick, according to the report.

On September 10, 2008, the Tennessee Supreme court ruled that Alcoa Inc. can be sued for the asbestos-related death of a former worker’s daughter. The Pittsburgh-based company had argued that it should not be held responsible for the former worker’s daughter’s mesothelioma, a rare cancer associated with asbestos that lead to her death in 2005.

The daughter initially sued the company in 2003, claiming that the asbestos dust her father brought home on his clothes had caused her cancer. The ex Alcoa worker has continued the lawsuit as the representative of his daughter’s estate. He hauled asbestos for the company in the 1970s.

The court ruled on September 10, 2008 that the employer had a duty to prevent others from being exposed to the asbestos-contaminated clothes of its workers. The lawsuit is seeking $10 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

The case was initially dismissed in Blount County, but the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed that decision and reinstated the lawsuit. The company appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court.

The attorney representing the plaintiff, said the Supreme Court’s ruling is a broad one that goes beyond the previous appeals court ruling.

Justice William Koch wrote in the opinion: “In light of the magnitude of the potential harm from exposure to asbestos and the means available to prevent or reduce this harm, we see no reason to prevent carpool members, baby sitters, or the domestic help from pursuing negligence claims against an employer should they develop mesothelioma after being repeatedly and regularly in close contact with an employee’s asbestos-contaminated work clothes over an extended period of time.”

Alcoa spokesman Kevin Lowery said that company officials were disappointed by the ruling, but that they still have confidence in their ability to argue the case in trial.

“We thought we had a good case in dismissing it once, and we still think we have a good case and will go that route,” Lowery said.