Skip to main contentSkip to navigation
Hamilton Law Firm LLC
Hamilton Law Firm LLC

913-647-7512
Legal Question?

Menu
  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profile
  • Practice Areas
  • Why Choose Us
  • Representative Work
  • Legal News
  • Contact Us

Practice Areas

Business Litigation
Legal Malpractice
Local Counsel
Medical Malpractice
Nursing Home Abuse
Personal Injury
Product Liability
Wrongful Death

For More Information

Fill out our online form

Home » Wyeth Wins Fen Phen Lawsuits

Wyeth Wins Fen Phen Lawsuits

July 28th, 2010
Posted By
Patrick Hamilton
Tweet

New York (July 28, 2010) -- For the second time this week a state appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a suit over Wyeth Inc.'s fen-phen, this time finding that the plaintiff could not prove causation because she did not actually suffer from one of the drug's nondisclosed risks.

In a ruling Tuesday, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that Pennsylvania law does not allow a plaintiff to prove proximate causation where a drug manufacturer’s warning disclosed a risk of injury and the plaintiff sustained that very injury, but the manufacturer failed to disclose another risk of injury that the plaintiff did not sustain.

The decision came in the failure-to-warn case of plaintiff Nancy Cochran, who sued Wyeth after being diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension in April 2004.

Cochran ingested the prescription drug — sold under the brand name Redux — from November 1996 to August 1997.

The doctor who prescribed her the medication, Dr. Stephen Anthay, informed Cochran that Redux may cause PPH, but was unaware at the time of the risk that the drug could cause valvular heart disease.

Cochran had argued that Redux’s warnings were faulty because they failed to warn of the danger of VHD, even though she did not develop that disease. She contended that as early as 1994, Wyeth had reason to suspect that Redux could cause VHD, and that Anthay wouldn't have prescribed the drug to her had he been adequately warned that Redux could cause the disease.

Wyeth pulled Redux from the market in September 2007 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested the company issue a “black box” warning detailing the risks of VHD.

A trial court sided with Wyeth in September 2009, ruling that Wyeth’s warnings with regard to PPH were adequate because the company informed Anthay that Redux may cause PPH.

Because Cochran suffered from PPH and not VHD, the trial court said, she could not establish that Wyeth’s failure to warn of the risk of VHD was the proximate cause of her particular injury.

In its ruling Tuesday, the appeals court agreed with Wyeth's contention that in order to establish proximate causation, Cochran must prove that the company's warnings failed to disclose the risk of her particular injury, PPH.

Although Anthay testified that he would not have prescribed Redux to Cochran had known of the risk of VHD, that did not alter the fact that Wyeth failed to disclose the risk of VHD and she suffered from PPH.

“In these circumstances, the relationship between the legal wrong (the failure to disclose the risk of VHD) and the injury (PPH) is not directly correlative and is too remote for proximate causation,” the appeals court said. “Therefore, as a matter of law, there is no proximate, causal connection between Wyeth’s failure to disclose the risk of VHD and appellant’s specific injury.”

The decision marks the pharmaceutical giant's second victory in a trio of related cases that were argued together before the Superior Court.

On Monday, the appeals court ruled that Pennsylvania law does not recognize causes of action for negligently failing to test a drug or failing to withdraw it from the market.

The appeals court also found that the appellant's alleged claims of “negligent marketing” and “negligent failure to withdraw Pondimin from the market” failed, since they were not recognized as causes of action under Pennsylvania law.

Thousands of cases over Wyeth's Pondimin were settled as part of a global resolution in 1999, with the drugmaker eventually agreeing to damages of around $13 billion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed an award of $567 million in attorneys' fees in the multidistrict litigation in 2009.

Cochran was represented in the current matter by Eisenberg Rothweiler Winkler Eisenberg & Jeck PC, Williams Love O'Leary & Powers PC and the Law Offices of Howard J. Bashman.

The appellee was represented by Reed Smith LLP and DLA Piper.

The case is Cochran v. Wyeth Inc., case number 2838 EDA 2008, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Categories: Legal News

Practice Areas

Business Litigation
Legal Malpractice
Local Counsel
Medical Malpractice
Nursing Home Abuse
Personal Injury
Product Liability
Wrongful Death

For More Information

Fill out our online form

Recent Blog Posts

18
Negligence Lawsuits: What the Plaintiff Must Prove
February 18th, 2021
Negligence occurs when a party fails to exercise proper care and, as a result, damages occur. Laws surrounding negligence and liability vary from state to state, so it’s important to contact a Kansas and Missouri injury attorney to represent your c… Read More
6
Legal Malpractice: What You Must Prove
February 6th, 2017
If you believe you were not represented properly by an attorney, a Kansas legal malpractice attorney can help determine if you may have a claim. As you can imagine, pursuing a claim against an attorney can be an uphill battle. Attorneys that may be p… Read More

Read more from our blog

Representative Work

$170,000 Jury Verdict in Negligent Misrepresenation Case
On April 24, 2018, attorney Patrick Hamilton obtained a $170,000 jury verdict in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in a negligent misrepresentation case. Hamilton Law Firm’s client purchased a house in Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Kathryn Sylvia was the seller’s real estate agent and an employee of defendant Platinum Realty. The sale was a “cash sale” in which payment was to be wired. The plaintiff received wiring instructions via email from Sylvia’s email account. Plaintiff forwarded the wiring instructions to his bank, which wired his money in accordance with the instructions. In actuality, the wiring instructions were prepared by a criminal hacker which caused plaintiff’s funds to be misdirected to Citi Bank in New York City. When the loss was discovered, plaintiff sued Sylvia and Platinum for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants claimed they did not email the wiring instructions to plaintiff and that plaintiff was comparatively negligent by not reviewing the wiring instructions before sending them to his bank. After a two day jury trial, the jury assigned defendants 85% of the fault and attributed 15% of the fault to plaintiff. Total damages were $196,622.67 with a net recovery to plaintiff of $167,129.27. Bain v. Platinum Realty LLC et al., Case No. 16-CV-02326-JWL. Read More
$280,000 Jury Verdict in Legal Malpractice Case (January 18, 2017)
On January 18, 2017, Hamilton Law Firm LLC obtained a $280,000.00 jury verdict in a legal malpractice lawsuit for Power Control Devices, Inc., an Olathe company specializing in the manufacture of electronic devices. The underlying litigation involved a breach of contract lawsuit against Orchid Engineering, Technologies and Consulting in the Boston, Massachusetts area. After PCD’s case had been pending for almost two years, Orchid filed a motion for summary judgment contending the lawsuit was not filed before the statutes of limitation expired. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts agreed, dismissing Power Control’s claims as untimely. Hamilton Law firm sued Power Control’s attorney in the underlying litigation, Michael “Mick” Lerner, for legal malpractice. After a seven day jury trial in Johnson County Kansas District Court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Power Control. PCD Verdict Form 2617 Read More

Read more about our successes

Contact Us

Google Map of Hamilton Law Firm LLC’s Location
Hamilton Law Firm LLC
8700 Monrovia, Suite 310
Lenexa, KS 66215
913-647-7512

© 2025 Hamilton Law Firm LLC
View Our Disclaimer
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm

Copyright © 2025 Hamilton Law Firm LLC