IBJNews

Part of Mississippi's Zyprexa case against Lilly dismissed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. has won a bid to dismiss part of a negligence lawsuit brought by Mississippi that alleges improper marketing of antipsychotic drug Zyprexa for unapproved uses, according to Bloomberg News.

Mississippi, like many other states that have sued Lilly, is seeking reimbursement for money spent in the state's Medicaid program on Zyprexa prescriptions. However, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein on Tuesday granted part of Lilly's request for a decision before trial on Mississippi's claims and dismissed most of the allegations, except one that Lilly charged Mississippi more than the drug was worth.

"The use of aggregate proof to establish essential elements of Mississippi’s theories of recovery is barred by applicable law,” Weinstein wrote in a 117-page order that denied the state's request for a summary judgment ruling in its favor.

The judge, based in Brooklyn, N.Y., put further proceedings on hold pending the outcome of an appeal of similar rulings he issued in other Zyprexa cases that he’s presiding over.

Weinstein wrote that a ruling in favor of Mississippi could have put Lilly out of business.

"If allowed to proceed in their entirety, the state's claims could result in serious harm or bankruptcy for this defendant and the pharmaceutical industry generally," he wrote. "For the legal system to be used for this slash-and-burn style of litigation would arguably constitute an abuse of the legal process. Constitutional, statutory and common law rights of those injured to seek relief from the courts must be recognized. But courts cannot be used as an engine of an industry's destruction."

Zyprexa, Lilly’s best-selling drug, has been the subject of federal and state investigations into marketing practices.

The company settled with the U.S. Justice Department in January for $1.42 billion, including about $362 million to more than 30 states. Several other states that did not participate in the federal case have reached separate settlements or agreements.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Zyprexa litigation
    Eli Lilly has made $38 billion on Zyprexa and it was way oversold and caused diabetes and in some cases sudden death.
    Eli Lilly has received a huge criminal fine over their Zyprexa cash cow,add it all up comes to $4.6 billion, in Zyprexa settlements,fines,litigation.

    Did you know that Lilly made $ billions last year on diabetic meds, Actos,Humulin and Byetta?

    They sell a drug that can cause diabetes and then turn a profit on the drugs that treat the condition that Eli Lilly has made $38 billion on Zyprexa and it was way oversold and caused diabetes and in some cases sudden death.
    Eli Lilly has received a huge criminal fine over their Zyprexa cash cow,add it all up comes to $4.6 billion, in Zyprexa settlements,fines,litigation.


    Addictive Zyprexa was pushed by Lilly Drug Reps.
    They called it the "Five at Five" (5 mg at 5 pm to keep nursing home patients subdued and sleepy) and "VIVA ZYPREXA" (Zyprexa for everybody) campaigns to off label market Eli Lilly Zyprexa as a fix for unapproved usage.
    Eli Lilly is 'reaping the whirlwind' for aggressive marketing of Zyprexa that has caused suffering and deaths. they may have caused in the first place!

    ----
    Daniel Haszard Zyprexa whistle-blower

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT