From: judgebean23x@gmail.com   
      
   Court says patients can sue drug companies for fraud    
      
      
   By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | Updated 4 months ago    
      
   PHOENIX -- In a major victory for patients, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled   
   Thursday they can sue prescription drug companies for consumer fraud.    
      
   Shattering their own precedents, the judges acknowledged that such lawsuits   
   have not been allowed before in Arizona under the presumption that the drug   
   company's only obligation is to provide the full list of complications and   
   side effects to the doctors    
   who are prescribing the drug. The premise was that patients do not need that   
   information.    
      
   But Judge John Gemmill, writing for the unanimous court, said that rule no   
   longer has validity because of how manufacturers now are marketing their   
   products.    
      
   "Prescription medication is often advertised and sold to consumers in a manner   
   similar to other consumer goods," he said.    
      
   Gemmill acknowledged that patients cannot get these drugs absent a   
   prescription written by a doctor. But he said this is no longer the one-way   
   discussion it used to be.    
      
   "Consumers discuss medications with their medical providers and may express   
   preferences based on advertising," Gemmill wrote. And he said patients have to   
   decide whether to buy and actually use a drug even after getting a   
   prescription.    
      
   "As a result, consumers may be deceived through fraudulent misrepresentations   
   in connection with the sale of prescription drugs just as in the sale of   
   traditional consumer goods," the judge explained. And that, he said, means the   
   state's Consumer Fraud    
   Act applies to the sale and advertising of prescription drugs.    
      
   "Consumers are regularly presented with advertisements for medications to   
   treat a variety of symptoms, prompting them to ask, encourage, and even   
   pressure their medical providers to prescribe these brand-name medications,"   
   the judge wrote. And he said    
   Internet sites and medical databases give consumers access to both   
   manufacturer-provided and third-party information about drugs.    
      
   "A physician no longer is necessarily the consumer's sole source of   
   information about the effects, benefits, and risks of the medication he or she   
   takes," Gemmill wrote.    
      
   What all that means, the judge said, is a manufacturer should not be shielded   
   from liability.    
      
   "Otherwise a consumer may be left without recourse against a manufacturer in a   
   situation where an adequate warning to a prescribing physician is undermined   
   or negated by the flawed or incomplete representations of the manufacturer to   
   the consumer," he    
   said.    
      
   The case involves Solodyn, an oral antibiotic manufactured by Scottsdale-based   
   Medicis Pharmaceutical Co.    
      
   In 2008, Amanda Watts, a minor at the time, got a prescription for the drug   
   from a doctor to treat chronic acne. She used the drug for 20 weeks.    
      
   When she returned to the same doctor two years later, she got a new   
   prescription for Solodyn and took it for another 20 weeks.    
      
   Before using the drug, she got two informational publications providing   
   details. Neither disclosed any link between Solodyn use and the development of   
   autoimmune disorders.    
      
   But the company, in information available to the doctor, warns of lupus-like   
   dyndrome and autoimmune hepatitis from "long-term" use of the drug. And that   
   information tells doctors they should inform patients of symptoms that might   
   develop that should    
   cause them to immediately stop using the drug and seek medical help.    
      
   In late 2010 Watts was hospitalized with drug-induced lupus and drug-induced   
   hepatitis, both of which she alleges are side effects of her use of Solodyn.   
   While she has recovered from the hepatitis, doctors say she may suffer from   
   lupus the rest of her    
   life.    
      
   A trial judge threw out her consumer fraud lawsuit. But Gemmill said that was   
   wrong.    
      
   He said the Arizona law prohibits "any deception, deceptive or unfair act or   
   practice, fraud, false promise or misrepresentation" in connection with "the   
   sale or advertisement of any merchandise." And Gemmill said prescription drugs   
   are merchandise.    
      
   More to the point, he said it's the kind of merchandise that is advertised and   
   sold just like any other consumer good.    
      
   The court acknowledged that Watts' physician had access to all the   
   information. But Gemmill said that does not take the manufacturer off the hook   
   given the marketing done directly to consumers.    
      
   There was no immediate response from the attorney for the drug company.    
      
      
      
   http://m.yumasun.com/news/court-says-patients-can-sue-drug-compa   
   ies-for-fraud/article_e60a23e8-a838-11e4-9af7-f3203e4a9ef1.html?mode=jqm   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)