Toxics Defense

Unexpected Prempro Verdict

While the Judge today denied punitive damages, drug maker Wyeth has had a $1.5 million verdict entered because of its drug Prempro, a hormone replacement therapy that Plaintiff alleged lead to her breast cancer, as reported in Business Week, and cited in other blogs.  This is one of some 4500 suits pending against the drug manufacturer.  What makes this particularly interesting is that several months ago, when the second trial involving this treatment was in trial, there seemed to be a consensus that “the science isn’t there.” 

As those of us who have represented defendants in toxic torts for years have come to learn, “the science isn’t there” may be a logical defense, but logic too often doesn’t stand up against sympathetic jurors.

Science and Asbestos

Just to get current, here's an entry I did as a guest on my partner Bruce Nye's blog, Cal Biz Lit:

http://www.calbizlit.com/cal_biz_lit/science_and_the_law/index.html

Problems may come home to roost

The issues that Christopher Andreas of Brayton Purcell has had with the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio have been widely circulated in emails, the blogoshere,

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/01/25/law-blog-lawyer-of-the-day-christopher-andreas/

and even in the print media.  It now appears that one organization, the Civil Justice Association of California,  is also asking the California State Bar to look into the charges made against Mr. Andreas and his firm.

http://www.cjac.org/publications/news/detail.cfm?HeadlineID=1207

Welcome to Toxics Defense

Hello and welcome.

I've been practicing law in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a focus on toxics defense (asbestos, lead, silica, mold) for quite a few years now.  My intent in creating this blog is to circulate and analyze items of interest related to toxics litigation in the Bay Area and beyond.

I hope you come back often.

- Barbara Adams