Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer - Rants and Raves - Most Commented

How Would Tort Reform Affect the Quality of Emergency Healthcare?

Staff Writer — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:00:00 GMT

In 1975, the California State Legislature passed the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) which placed a cap on damages for medical malpractice claims. According to this Act, an injured plaintiff cannot recover non-economic losses in excess of $250,000. This tort reform statute has been in effect in California for thirty-two years. Because this California law has been in effect for so long, perhaps we can look to this state to determine whether tort reform has been effective in improving the quality and price of medical care. In general, I believe private market conditions rather than government interference and regulation leads to higher quality and efficiency. This means that I do not believe that artificial caps on damages are effective in improving the quality and cost of medical care.

Today, I came across a shocking news story about the quality of emergency room care in at least one hospital in California. A patient who was bleeding from her mouth and crying out in pain while she was forced to wait more than forty-five minutes in the lobby of the emergency room at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital died because she did not receive timely emergency care. According to news accounts, family members tried to call 911 to receive timely medical care and transport the patient to another facility. Unfortunately, dispatchers refused to call paramedics after learning about her location. According to news accounts of the breakdown in patient care:

In the recordings of two 911 calls that day, first obtained by the Los Angeles Times under a California Public Records Act request, callers pleaded for help for Rodriguez but were referred to hospital staff instead.
"I'm in the emergency room. My wife is dying and the nurses don't want to help her out," Rodriguez's boyfriend, Jose Prado, is heard saying in Spanish through an interpreter on the tapes.
"What's wrong with her?" a female dispatcher asked.
"She's vomiting blood," Prado said.
"OK, and why aren't they helping her?" the dispatcher asked
'They're just watching her'
"They're watching her there and they're not doing anything. They're just watching her," Prado said.
The dispatcher told Prado to contact a doctor and then said paramedics wouldn't pick her up because she was already in a hospital. She later told him to contact county police officers at a security desk.

The patient died after suffering from a perforated bowel which according to the coroner, could have been surgically repaired if it had been caught in time. Clearly, the emergency medical care provided to this patient fell well below the standard of care required for emergency medical providers. In fact, according to press reports, the hospital had a history of patient safety problems. The federal government previously even warned this hospital about safety problems placing emergency room patients at immediate risk of harm. The hospital risked losing federal funding had it not improved patient safety.

What do caps on damages in medical malpractice litigation have to do with this California hospital? Perhaps nothing. However, I believe that possible litigation damage awards usually play a role in how people manage risks. Because risk management departments evaluate safety based upon exposure to damage awards, damage caps can play a role in the priorities placed on patient safety programs. Perhaps if this hospital placed more emphasis on patient safety, it would have had a more effective patient triage program in place rather than forcing a patient with a perforated bowel to wait in an emergency room lobby until she died.

I must admit that other than what has been reported in news stories, I know nothing about this hospital. However, I firmly believe that risk management departments place an increased emphasis on patient safety when facing an unlimited exposure to litigation risk . As a result, litigation can be an effective tool to promote safety. This hospital never faced a civil judgment beyond exposure to civil damages caps. Because such risks never existed in California, perhaps patients suffer from poor quality of care. Do you believe the hospital has adequate incentive to provide safe patient care? Do you believe that damage caps play a role in the safety decisions corporations and medical providers make? Would damage caps in California work in Arizona? Let me know your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Has Your Health Insurance Company Treated You Fairly?

Staff Writer — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:00:09 GMT

Today in the Los Angeles Times, I read about the health insurance company Blue Shield of California which has been sued by a policyholder alleging bad faith for refusing to pay medical bills totalling $450,000 arising out of a serious car accident. According the the article, the insureds applied for health insurance, paid premiums and received an individual policy through Blue Shield of California in December, 2000. After receiving the policy and believing they had health insurance coverage, unfortunately the husband suffered serious injuries in a car accident in March, 2001. Blue Shield paid more than $100,000 in medical expense claims relating to this car accident and then decided to re-examine the family's application for health insurance. After re-examining the application, Blue Shield contended that the family mis-stated the husband's weight and other medical conditions and claimed that it would never have issued the health insurance policy had it known of the husband's true weight. As a result of alleged mis-statements, Blue Shield of California denied remaining claims and rescinded the family's health insurance policy. Blue Shield rescinded the family's health insurance policy leaving more than $346,000 in outstanding medical bills and an unpaid debt owing to Blue Shield to reimburse the approximately $104,000 in claims already paid. The family sued Blue Shield alleging that it rescinded the policy for reasons unrelated to the answers on the policy application, instead rescinding when the insureds became unprofitable after the husband's serious auto accident.

In Arizona, an insurer has an obligation to deal with you fairly and in good faith. If you believe you have been victimized by the conduct of an insurance company, you can submit a complaint to the Arizona Department of Insurance who will investigate to determine if it believes any laws have been violated. You may also consider meeting with a private lawyer to assist in determining what private remedies may be available if an insurance company treats you unfairly. Have you had similar experiences with your health insurance carrier? Have you had positive dealings with your insurance carrier? I'd like to hear about your experiences.

If the facts of this case are as indicated in the LA Times article, do you believe Blue Shield acted fairly and in good faith toward its insureds by taking away insurance only after expensive claims had been submitted? Do you believe that Blue Shield of California truly believed that it would not have issued the health insurance policy if the husband's true weight were recorded on the policy application or do you believe the company attempted to rescind the policy simply because the family's claims expenses were so high? What limitations or restrictions, if any, should be placed on a health insurance company such as Blue Shield when it evaluates whether to rescind a health insurance policy? Did the company do anything inappropriate in the method it processed claims for benefits related to this automobile accident? What other information would affect your answers to these questions? Let me know your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

State Farm Insurance CEO Pay Rises Eighty-Two Percent

Staff Writer — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:00:06 GMT

Congratulations to State Farm Insurance Company! Its profits rose almost sixty-four percent (64%) to $5.32 billion dollars last year from $3.24 billion dollars in 2005. In my opinion, during this time, I do not think that State Farm acted like very much of a good neighbor to victims of Hurricane Katrina or to other policy-holders who timely paid premiums thinking they would be protected in times of calamity. Unfortunately, it appears that when needed most, many insurance policy-holders were denied policy benefits last year. In the midst of its record-setting year, according to a recent story on CNN, State Farm apparently adopted a policy to minimize settlement offers for low-impact motor vehicle collisions forcing accident victims to take substantially low settlement offers or spent significant costs in litigation. Moreover, Katrina victims were forced to sue State Farm for refusing to pay property damage claims. By minimizing payouts to its policy-holders, these steps have maximized State Farm's profitability to record levels.

In the midst of these record-setting profits, State Farm's CEO's salary increased at an even faster pace. The CEO's overall salary increased by eighty-two percent (82%) from $6.4 million dollars in 2005 to $11.66 million dollars in 2006.

State Farm's public relations teams continue to champion tort reform initiatives even during such record setting years of profitability. I believe that State Farm and other companies have every right to make a substantial profit and ordinarily I would applaud these efforts. I do not question State Farm's right to earn $5.32 billion dollars nor do I believe that government should intervene to regulate the insurance industry any further. However, I am curious how State Farm or any other insurance company can earn such large profits on the one hand, and still claim losses based on the lack of tort reform initiatives throughout our country on the other. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

America On-Line Version of Tort Reform Incomplete and Inaccurate

Staff Writer — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:04:37 GMT

Today I discovered an interesting and entertaining page on the America On Line web site. Discussing so-called frivolous lawsuits, America On-Line lists as news several lawsuits without real attribution or legitimate discussion about corporate accountability for wrongdoing. Setting aside the issue of whether these lawsuits are in fact real or a political effort to encourage tort reform initiatives across the country, I had hoped that America On-Line would present a more balanced set of facts and discussion about the lawsuits which in fact encourage corporate accountability for harm. What about the litigation that encourages corporations and other defendants to prioritize consumer safety? Of the frivolous lawsuits which have been filed, how many have been dismissed immediately? What percentage of lawsuits present to the jury real harm, real problems and a need for real accountability?

I would guess that a vast majority of litigation in our state involves real and not frivolous issues. Because the great majority of litigation involves non-frivolous litigation, why not present a balanced discussion of the issue? If AOL presented a balanced set of litigation-related stories, it would talk about why seat belts or airbags have been placed as a safety device in cars. It would comment on why tire manufacturers have had to focus resources on revamping product safety initiatives to prevent tire tread separation. It would comment on homeowners' insurance carriers forcing jury trials by refusing to pay for damage to homes destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. It would focus on other industries where litigation has been used as a tool to demand corporate accountability and promote product safety.

I am proud to practice law and believe that our profession helps promote safety of products and services. Unfortunately, I believe that AOL's web site ignores these fundamental successes of our system of justice. When a lawsuit is frivolous, dismiss it and sanction the person filing it. Our Rules of Civil Procedure provide for such action. However, do not punish the majority of victims of wrongdoing by changing our tort system to elminate rights of a victim to seek a remedy for harm. I only hope that we as consumers do not ignore the benefits of demanding accountability for wrongdoing when the facts justify doing so. What do you think? Does AOL ignore the benefits of litigation purely to entertain? Click here to comment about AOL's analysis about frivolous lawsuits. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this site as well.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Taser International to Introduce Consumer Stun Gun

Staff Writer — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:28:58 GMT

I just read today in the Arizona Republic that Scottsdale based Taser International plans on introducing a new consumer stun gun at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas next week. With its perfect record thus far on product liability litigation lawsuits against it relating to its law enforcement stun gun product, I am not surprised to see this company branching out into the consumer arena.

Last year, I reported periodically on product liability implications at Taser International. In one posting, I referred to a study published in the Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers suggesting that the energy levels delivered in Taser's non-lethal weapons were considerably higher than indicated by the manufacturer placing stun guns into the lethal category of weaponry and raising the question about whether its weapons were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The study as reported in an Arizona Republic article discussed the possible dangers of the Taser weapon and its product liability implications.

Taser has successfully weathered a firestorm of controversy over its products and the deaths which have resulted from the use of its non-lethal weapons by law enforcement personnel. If such controversy exists over well-trained law enforcement and military personnel using its products, I wonder what can we expect when consumers begin to use them?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Michael Moore's Movie "Sicko" and Its Portrayal of US Healthcare

Staff Writer — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:00:00 GMT

Michael Moore released a new movie about the system of healthcare in the United States. In the movie, he portrays our healthcare system as one in crisis. Do you believe our healthcare system in this country provides the best quality of care to patients at a reasonable cost? Have you seen the movie Sicko? Do you think the movie accurately portrays problems with our healthcare system in America? Do you believe our healthcare system is in a crisis? I have not seen the movie but am interested in hearing from anybody who has.

According to press accounts, Moore presents stories about patients and their problems receiving quality healthcare. He also compares the healthcare system in the United States with systems in other countries and apparently advocates for a universal healthcare system in this country. Moore presents examples of patients who were evicted from their homes because they received costly medical services but could not afford to pay for the care. In another example, Moore presents a patient who, due to the overburdensome cost, had to choose between re-attachment of a severed index or ring finger but not both. In contrast, a Canadian patient using that country's healthcare system would have been able to have all of his severed fingers re-attached at no cost.

I understand that the movie seems to advocate eliminating health insurance companies altogether from our system of healthcare and instead, providing a single payor government run or administered system for everybody. I am not sure our country can look to mandatory government run healthcare as the catchall answer to the complex problems and questions about access to healthcare and quality of service. I always have concerns when people suggest our government can create a new large bureaucratic program and have this program deliver quality services to everybody at low or no cost. Look at the Veterans Administration as an example of how medical care could be administered to patients and taxpayers throughout the country. Can we honestly say that our military veterans who sacrifice so much for this country receive quality healthcare? Based upon recent news accounts about problems at Walter Reed Medical Center and other VA medical facilities across the country, I do not believe that our military veterans receive the highest quality of medical care. If our military veterans do not receive adequate and quality healthcare, how can we believe that our government can successfully administer a healthcare program for everybody? Also, even if our government can successfully create a new bureaucracy to oversee healthcare delivery, what will this program cost? Our budget deficit already requires massive government borrowing which crowds out private sector access to capital. We probably cannot create such a massive bureaucracy without increasing taxes. Perhaps we should consider new taxes or user fees if raising taxes could lead to a reasonable resolution of the problems we see in our healthcare system. I am just not convinced that a new government program is the answer.

Last year, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill requiring health insurance for all citizens. According to the Washington Post,

The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill . . . that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.
Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.

This approach involves providing state subsidies for low income citizens; however, I do not know whether the legislation addresses problems associated with denial of coverage for pre-existing health conditions. The legislation took effect as of July 1 this year and presents one approach to addressing problems with the uninsured. Other health care policy study groups have been evaluating options and will likely present research in response to the Moore movie. Perhaps some of the suggestions in the Massachusetts model, the Rand Project, or other research initiatives can be looked upon and applied nationally if successful.

I commend Michael Moore for drawing our nation's attention to the problem with healthcare in America and plan to see the movie soon. I do not necessarily agree with his apparent suggested solution; however, at least he increased our awareness of healthcare problems. Hopefully policymakers can come up with creative solutions to improve the quality and cost of care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Blue Cross of California Agrees to Settle Rescission Class Action Lawsuit

Staff Writer — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:00:00 GMT

Blue Cross of California recently entered a settlement agreement to resolve a class action lawsuit against the health insurer concerning the nature of its individual health insurance business practices. Blue Cross had been accused of using innocent mistakes on poorly worded insurance applications to rescind policies after insureds submitted costly claims. After concluding that it would lose money based on costly claims, the company allegedly undertook a campaign to find the slightest misrepresentations on the application for insurance and rescind the policy leaving individuals without coverage and with thousands of dollars in unpaid medical claims.

As a condition of the settlement, Blue Cross agreed to modify its health insurance application form to make it more readable and user friendly. Also, Blue Cross agreed to only rescind individual health insurance policies when policy applications contained intentional and wilful lies. In other words, insureds in California who make honest mistakes in an application for health insurance cannot have their policies taken away from them when they submit claims and need insurance the most.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Blue Cross of California agreed to a series of changes in business practices to help the consumer health insurance policy-holders:

The move is part of an effort to settle a class-action lawsuit on behalf of as many as 6,000 people canceled since late 2001. It is an about-face for Blue Cross in what had become known as "use-it-and-lose-it" health coverage because the cancellations were often triggered by patients' claims for treatment.
The insurer's new stance is aimed at ending rescissions based on policyholders' honest mistakes, inadvertent errors and other inconsistencies about their medical histories on applications for coverage. Consumers contend that the forms are purposely confusing, increasing the odds that applicants will make mistakes.
"This is a very significant consumer health victory ... something we believe they should have been following all along," said Cindy Ehnes, director of the state Department of Managed Health Care.
* * * *
"What we have tried to say to the plans is the process that you use to make those determinations is very flawed," Ehnes said. "First you go back way too far in someone's medical history. Most of us can't remember what we ate for dinner last night, much less what the doctor told us 20 years ago."
Among other changes, Blue Cross agreed to consult policyholders about application problems in deciding whether a rescission was justified.

An easier to read application makes it more difficult for an insurance carrier to claim rescission based upon poorly worded ambiguous application questions. Also, requiring the carrier to prove the consumer intentionally lied on the application before rescinding the insurance policy provides the consumer with protection for innocent yet incorrect application responses. Lastly, providing an appeals process after a policy has been taken away provides the consumer with an efficient tool to contest the company's decisions. All of these concessions negotiated in the context of a class action lawsuit against Blue Cross protect individual policy-holders and demonstrate the benefit of that litigation. I congratulate Plaintiffs' attorney William Shernoff, the California state Department of Managed Health Care and Blue Cross of California for their efforts.

I applaud Blue Cross of California's decision to change its conduct and hope that health-insurance companies in Arizona do the same thing. Hopefully Arizona health insurance providers will enact similar measures and abandon efforts to use innocent yet incorrect responses on poorly worded and confusing insurance applications as a basis to take away health insurance policies when consumers need protection the most.

Do you have an individual health insurance policy in Arizona? Have you had similar problems? What do you think about the settlement in California? Do you believe health insurance companies in Arizona should enact the same changes here?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Health Insurance Coverage in Times of Need

Staff Writer — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:00:00 GMT

In May, I wrote about problems with health insurance companies in California. Specifically, an insured with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California sued the company alleging bad faith arising out of the company's decision to rescind a health insurance policy based on high claims expenses. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that the carrier accused the insureds of misrepresenting responses to questions contained in the application for health insurance only when it became clear the company would have to pay over $450,000 in medical expenses.

Across the country, health insurance companies make decisions to take away health insurance policies which have become too expensive based upon allegedly false statements contained in policy applications. If an insured truly misled an insurance company in the insurance policy application and in reliance on material misrepresentations, the carrier issued a health insurance policy, Arizona law allows the carrier to rescind the policy. I am curious whether carriers are using minor variations in application questions which have been prepared in good faith as a basis for decisions to rescind unprofitable health insurance policies.

Imagine diligently preparing an application for health insurance answering all questions as best as you can. You timely pay premiums believing that your carrier will provide benefits when needed. Suddenly, you suffer injuries in an accident and require costly medical care. When you or your medical providers submit these medical bills to the carrier for payment, the company decides that your claims expenses are just too costly. As a result, the insurance company undertakes a review of your policy application to see if you made any material misstatements in it. Why? The insurance company entered into a contract with you and promised to pay your medical expenses according to the terms of its policy. However, if a policy has become unprofitable, the company may decide to investigate to determine whether it may properly rescind your health insurance policy and eliminate claims payouts on this money-losing policy if you made false statements on your application for coverage. If you made a false statement of a material fact on your insurance application, the insurance company will likely attempt to deny your medical expense claims and rescind your insurance policy.

As I mentioned earlier, under Arizona law, an insurance company has the right to rescind a policy. A carrier may rightfully rescind your insurance policy if you intentionally misrepresented various opinion responses or provided materially incorrect factual responses on your insurance application. The inaccurate responses must have been material to the company's underwriting decisions and the insurance company must show that it would not in good faith have issued the policy had it not been for the misrepresentation.

Disputes often occur over whether insureds actually misrepresented responses on an insurance application, whether such alleged misrepresentation amounted to a material misstatement justifying a carrier's decision to take away an insurance policy and whether the carrier would not have in good faith issued the insurance policy if the alleged misrepresentation not occurred. Plaintiffs such as those in the Blue Cross case in California often argue that the decision to rescind a policy amounts to nothing more than a pretext used by the company to eliminate claims payments for money-losing health insurance policies rather than a good faith decision not to issue a policy based upon alleged misrepresentation.

If you have a dispute with your insurance company and your dispute involves refusal to pay a claim rather than rescission of a policy, Consumer's Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine, published A Consumer Guide to Handling Disputes with your Employer or Private Health Plan containing details about applicable policies and laws governing claims disputes. Also, the Arizona Department of Insurance web site contains various consumer friendly resources to assist you in working through disputes with health insurance carriers. Additionally, the National Federation of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) provides a database showing some information about consumer complaints. Please note, however, that consumer complaints tracked by this database only include those voluntarily reported to the NAIC by Insurance Departments throughout the country. The database does not include complaints consumers have not filed with a state department of insurance, complaints resolved in litigation, or informally resolved before litigation.

Have you had a bad experience with a health insurance carrier that rescinded your policy based on alleged misrepresentations? Describe your experiences. Were you able to resolve your dispute? How were you able to resolve the dispute. Did you file a complaint with the Arizona Department of Insurance? After a health insurance carrier rescinded your policy, were you able to find other health insurance coverage elsewhere? I'd like to hear from you and thank you in advance for sharing your stories.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Child Cancer Patients and Medication Errors

Staff Writer — Sun, 27 May 2007 09:00:36 GMT

As if struggling with and battling cancer is not enough, according to a researcher at Johns Hopkins Children Center, children often must also face the additional battle of having to overcome problems relating to medication errors.

Children with cancer often get the wrong dose of chemotherapy or are given the drug at the wrong time, and many require treatment because of the errors, U.S. researchers said on Friday.

Medication errors involving the improper administration of cancer medication present serious challenges as children struggle to cope with their illness. Usually the errors involve administration of chemotherapy designed to kill cancerous cells. When administered improperly, chemotherapy can kill good cells and cause further health problems.

The Johns Hopkins Childrens Center has already been on the cutting edge of research recommending methods to avoid clinical errors in the administration of chemotherapy to child cancer patients. As far back as 2003, Johns Hopkins has recommended a systematic approach using chemotherapy audits to minimize risk of harm administering chemotherapy. Researchers previously recommended checks and double checks prior to administrating chemotherapy to minimize risk of medication error.

If somebody's child suffered consequences as a result of a medication error, should the care provider be held accountable for the resulting problems? Various tort reform initiatives would reject this notion and not hold the wrongdoer accountable for damages resulting from the medication misadventure. Is this an example of fairness? Frivolous litigation? Accountability? Do you believe that tort reform initiatives are the answer to the problems created by errors in the administration of chemotherapy medication? Rather than advocating tort reform under these circumstances, perhaps safe medication administration practices could be the answer to problems resulting from medication errors. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Pharmacutical Company Pleads Guilty to Fraud involving Marketing Drug OxyContin

Staff Writer — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:05:51 GMT

Recently Purdue Pharma, together with three company executives, agreed to plead guilty to misleading the public in its marketing approach for the narcotic drug OxyContin. The company also agreed to pay fines and other assessments totalling $600 million dollars in one of the largest criminal penalties ever assessed against a company. According to the New York Times, Purdue Pharma mislead the public into believing that because the narcotic drug OxyContin involved a time release formulation, it involved less risks of addiction than other narcotic drugs. OxyContin is a powerful pain narcotic which lasts up to twelve hours. The drug is highly addictive and must be carefully monitored as a result. Unfortunately at the same time as Purdue Pharma's extremely aggressive marketing campaign began generating over one billion dollars in sales since the introduction of the drug in 1996, criminal activity involving OxyContin increased.

[B]oth experienced drug abusers and novices, including teenagers, soon discovered that chewing an OxyContin tablet or crushing one and then snorting the powder or injecting it with a needle produced a high as powerful as heroin. By 2000, parts of the United States, particularly rural areas, began to see skyrocketing rates of addiction and crime related to use of the drug.

Even though the company represented to the public that OxyContin was less addictive than other narcotics, internal company documents rejected this assertion.

Federal officials said that internal Purdue Pharma documents show that company officials recognized even before the drug was marketed that they would face stiff resistance from doctors who were concerned about the potential of a high-powered narcotic like OxyContin to be abused by patients or cause addiction.
As a result, company officials developed a fraudulent marketing campaign designed to promote OxyContin as a time-released drug that was less prone to such problems. The crucial ingredient in OxyContin is oxycodone, a narcotic that has been used for many years. But unlike other medications like Percocet that contain oxycodone along with other ingredients, OxyContin is pure oxycodone, with a large amount in each tablet because of the time-release design.

Following a four year thorough investigation by the United State's Attorney's office, Purdue Pharma admitted its criminal conduct and concluded that:

"Nearly six years and longer ago, some employees made, or told other employees to make, certain statements about OxyContin to some healthcare professionals that were inconsistent with the FDA-approved prescribing information for OxyContin and the express warnings it contained about risks associated with the medicine. The statements also violated written Company policies requiring adherence to the prescribing information. The misstatements were made prior to July 2001 and related to the risks of addiction, abuse, withdrawal, and tolerance compared to other pain medications. We accept responsibility for those past misstatements and regret that they were made.

In my opinion, this pharmaceutical company's conduct reaffirms the dangers of tort reform and corporate secrecy. Assume that somebody ingested and became addicted to OxyContin believing that its timed release formula involved less risk of addiction than other narcotics. Should the consumer have the right to demand accountability for an addiction or damages directly resulting from the pharmaceutical company's misrepresentations about OxyContin's timed release formulation? Probably so.

I can only imagine that this company's marketing strategy never would have been disclosed had it not been for a pending criminal investigation. In the course of civil litigation, shouldn't consumers have the right to know whether a corporation lied to them? Based upon the facts set out in the New York Times article, I believe so.

Most corporations act and behave professionally. However, Purdue Pharma's conduct shows all of us why we simply cannot assume that all companies will act fairly and responsibly toward consumers and shareholders. I hope consumers use this case as an important example about why we should reject tort reform and corporate secrecy. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer