The Las Vegas Herald: Las Vegas Judge Denies Attempt to Remove Her from Actos Case
The Las Vegas Herald reports that Judge Kerry Earley will not remove herself from a civil case filed by two women against Takeda Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Actos.
The Honorable Judge Earley stated, “I absolutely see no evidence that there’s any appearance of impropriety by me.” The Honorable Judge Earley made her ruling after attorney Danniel Polsenberg, who represents Takeda Pharmaceuticals, asked her to step down from the case or declare a mistrial. The article reports that others allege that defense counsel’s desire for a mistrial in this case stems from the fact that a jury in Louisiana awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $9 billion in punitive damages ($6 billion against Takeda; $3 billion against Eli Lilly) during the first trial in the Multidistrict Litigation In re: Actos® (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2299).
Actos® is a medication prescribed to control glucose (blood sugar) in adults with Type 2 diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved Actos® in 1999. The drug subsequently became the world’s best-selling diabetes treatment with Actos® sales peaking between March 2010 and March 2011 at $4.5 billion, or 27 percent of Takeda revenue, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News. In June 2011, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Alert warning that the use of Actos® for more than one year may be associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. According to Bloomberg, Actos® has generated more than $16 billion in sales since its 1999 release.
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP is a unique law firm that aggressively represents its clients injured as a result of dangerous pharmaceutical medications and unsafe medical devices. If you or a loved one developed bladder cancer after taking Actos® for more than one year, please contact the attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297 for your confidential and free consultation.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases discussed do not predict outcomes in future cases. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.