A woman who sued Wyeth, claiming her breast cancer was caused by the company's hormone replacement drug, did not show sufficient evidence that her doctor wouldn't have prescribed the drug if warnings were better, a Philadelphia judge explained as to why he overturned a $3 million jury award. Attorneys for Wyeth say the opinion could have a significant effect on the 1,500 similar cases pending in Philadelphia.
December 07, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A woman who sued Wyeth, claiming her breast cancer was caused by the company’s hormone replacement drug, did not show sufficient evidence that her doctor wouldn’t have prescribed the drug if warnings were better, a Philadelphia judge explained as to why he overturned a $3 million jury award.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Senior Judge Ricardo C. Jackson outlined for the Superior Court Thursday why his grant of JNOV and his denial of a punitive damages phase in Nelson v. Wyeth should be upheld.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
