Medical Monitoring for Pharmaceutical Injuries: Tort Law for the Public's Health?

JAMA

Volumn 289, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 889-894

  Studdert, David M ^a   Mello, Michelle M ^a   Brennan, Troyen A ^a,b  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANOREXIGENIC AGENT; DEXFENFLURAMINE; DICLOFENAC; FENFLURAMINE; ISONIAZID; ORAL ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; PARACETAMOL; TROGLITAZONE; 2,4 THIAZOLIDINEDIONE DERIVATIVE; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; CHROMAN DERIVATIVE; PHENTERMINE; THIAZOLE DERIVATIVE;

AORTA VALVE REGURGITATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COURT; DRUG FATALITY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LAW; LAW SUIT; LIVER CELL DAMAGE; LIVER INJURY; MEDICARE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; MITRAL VALVE REGURGITATION; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; VALVULAR HEART DISEASE; ARTICLE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MONITORING; ECONOMICS; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; UNITED STATES;

APPETITE DEPRESSANTS; CHROMANS; DEXFENFLURAMINE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MONITORING; FENFLURAMINE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; PHENTERMINE; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; PUBLIC HEALTH; THIAZOLES; THIAZOLIDINEDIONES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037453969     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.7.889     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA. 2002; 288:321-333.
2. Geyelin M. Wyeth's Prempro problems galvanize plaintiffs' lawyers. Wall Street Journal. July 16, 2002:B1.
3. Knopper M. Prempro users, lawyers resort to legal remedy. Chicago Tribune. September 11, 2002:1C.
4. Vogel-Short M. Client canvassing quickly launched for Prempro suits. New Jersey Lawyer. July 22, 2002:1.
5. Rubin R. Here come the legal wranglings over Prempro. USA Today. July 22, 2002:1D.
6. Adamu v Pfizer, No. 02-CV-2104 (D Conn filed October 27, 2002).
7. Sayre A. Class action suit over tobacco goes to trial after delays. Advocate. January 20, 2003:B3.
8. Henderson JA, Twerski AD. Asbestos litigation gone mad. SC Law Rev. 2002; 53:815-850.
9. Cutler DM, Gruber J, Hartman RS, et al. The economic impacts of the tobacco settlement. J Policy Analysis Manage. 2002;21:1-19.
10. Gostin LO. Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2000.
11. Parmet WE, Daynard RA. The new public health litigation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:437-454.
12. Keeton WP, Dobbs DB, Keeton RE, Owen DG. Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts. 5th ed. St Paul, Minn: West; 1984.
13. Fee E. Disease and Discovery: A History of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 1916-1939. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1987.
14. Mello MM, Brennan TA. Deterrence of medical errors: theory and evidence for malpractice reform. U Texas Law Rev. 2002;80:1595-1637.
15. Venugopal P. The class certification of medical monitoring claims. Colum Law Rev. 2002;102:1659-1695.
16. Miller AR. Of Frankenstein monsters and shining knights: myth, reality, and the class action problem. Harv Law Rev. 1979;92:664.
17. Coffee JC. The dilemma of the mass tort class action. Colum Law Rev. 1999; 95:1343-1465.
18. Hensler DR, Dombey-Moore B, Giddens E, et al. Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain. Santa Monica, Calif: Rand; 2000.
19. Resnik J, Curtis DE, Hensler DR. Individuals within the aggregate: relationships, representation, and fees. NYU Law Rev. 1996;71:296-353.
20. Coffee JC. The regulation of entrepreneurial litigation: balancing fairness and efficiency in the large class action. U Chic Law Rev. 1987;54:877-937.
21. Issacharoff S. 'Shocked': mass torts and aggregate asbestos litigation after Amchem and Ortiz. Texas Law Rev. 2002;80:1925-1941.
22. Friends for All Children Inc v Lockheed Aircraft Corp, 746 F2d 816 (DC Cir 1984).
23. Ayers v Township of Jackson, 525 A2d 287 (NJ 1987).
24. Barnes v American Tobacco Co, 161 F3d 127 (3d Cir 1988).
25. Potter v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co, 863 P2d 795, 821 (Cal 1993).
26. In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F3d 717 (3d Cir 1994).
27. Redland Soccer Club Inc v Department of Army, 696 A2d 137 (Pa 1997).
28. Slagel AT. Medical surveillance damages. Ind Law J. 1988;63:849-876.
29. Martin SL, Martin JD. Tort actions for medical monitoring: warranted or wasteful? Colum J Envtl Law. 1995;20:121-143.
30. Brennan TA. Environmental torts. Vand Law Rev. 1991;46:1-73.
31. Enterprise Responsibility for Personal Injury: Reporters' Study. Philadelphia, Pa: American Law Institute; 1991.
32. Bower v Westinghouse Electric Corp, 522 SE2d 424 (W Va 1999).
33. Connolly HM, McGoon MD. Obesity drugs and the heart. Curr Probl Cardiol. 1999;24:745-792.
34. Connolly HM, Crary JL, McGoon MD, et al. Valvular heart disease associated with fenfluramine-phentermine. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:581-588.
35. FDA analysis of cardiac valvular dysfunction with use of appetite suppressants. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/slides. Accessed July 2002.
36. Khan MA, Herzog CA, St Peter JV, et al. The prevalence of cardiac valvular insufficiency assessed by transthoracic echocardiography in obese patients treated with appetite-suppressant drugs. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:713-718.
37. Jick H, Vasilakis C, Weinrauch LA, Meier CR, Jick SS, Derby LE. A population-based study of appetite-suppressant drugs and the risk of cardiac-valve regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:719-724.
38. Weissman NJ, Tighe JF Jr, Gottdierier JS, et al. An assessment of heart-valve abnormalities in obese patients taking dexfenfluramine, sustained-release dexfenfluramine, or placebo. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:725-732.
39. Gardin JM, Schumacher D, Constantine G, Davis KD, Leung C, Reid CL. Valvular abnormalities and cardiovascular status following exposure to dexfenfluramine or phentermine/fenfluramine. JAMA. 2000;283:1703-1709.
40. Gardin JM, Weissman NJ, Leung C, et al. Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of patients previously treated with dexfenfluramine or phentermine/fenfluramine. JAMA. 2001;286:2011-2014.
41. Jick H. Heart valve disorders and appetite-suppressant drugs. JAMA. 2000; 283:1738-1740.
42. Jeffers v American Home Products Corp, No. 98-CV-20626, 1999 US Dist LEXIS 13228 (ED Pa August 26, 1999).
43. Birch v American Home Products Corp, No. 97-V-204 Civ (W Va February 11, 1999).
44. Earthman v American Home Products Corp, No. 97-10-03970 CV (Tex Dist Ct, October 14, 1998).
45. In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203, 2000 US Dist LEXIS 12275 (ED Pa February 1, 2001).
46. Nagareda RA. Autonomy, peace, and "put" options in the mass tort class action. Harv Law Rev. 2002;115:747-830.
47. Schwartz S, Raskin P, Fonseca V, Graveline JF, for the Troglitazone and Exogenous Insulin Study Group. Effect of troglitazone in insulin-treated patients with type II diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:861-866.
48. Watkins PB, Whitcomb RW. Hepatic dysfunction associated with troglitazone. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:916-917.
49. Gitlin N, Julie NL, Spurr CL, Lim KN, Juarbe HM. Two cases of severe clinical and histiologic hepatotoxicity associated with troglitazone. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 129:36-38.
50. Shibuya A, Wantanabe M, Fujita Y, et al. An autopsy case of troglitazone-induced fulminant hepatitis. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:2140-2143.
51. In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 210 FRD 61 (SDNY 2002).
52. Delaney v Warner-Lambert Co, No. BC227414, slip op (Cal Sup Ct January 15, 2002).
53. In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, No. 00-C-1180-H (W Va Cir Ct, December 5, 2001).
54. Schiano T, Dolehide K, Hart J, Baker AL. Severe but reversible hepatitis induced by troglitazone. Dig Dis Sci. 2000;45:1039-1042.
55. Kohlroser J, Mathai J, Reichheld J, Banner BF, Bonkovsky HL. Hepatotoxicity due to troglitazone. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:272-276.
56. Aithal PG, Day CP. The natural history of histologically proved drug induced liver disease. Gut. 1999;44:731-735.
57. Angell M. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. London, England: Norton; 1996.
58. Cranor CF, Eastmond DA. Scientific ignorance and reliable patterns of evidence in toxic tort causation. Law Contemp Probs. 2001;64:5-48.
59. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
60. Maskin A, Cailteux KL, McLaren JM. Medical monitoring: a viable remedy for deserving plaintiffs or tort law's most expensive consolation prize? Wm Mitchell Law Rev. 2000;27:521-550.
61. Hansen v Mountain Fuel Supply Co, 858 P2d 970 (Utah 1993).
62. Klein AR. Rethinking medical monitoring. Brook Law Rev. 1998;64:1-38.
63. Abraham KS. Environmental liability and the limits of insurance. Colum Law Rev. 1988;88:942-988.
64. Issacharoff S. Preclusion, due process, and the right to opt out of class actions. Notre Dame Law Rev. 2002;77:1057-1081.
65. Calabresi G. The Cost of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1970.
66. Diet drug settlement. Available at: http://www.ccnusa.com/providers/index.html. Accessed July 2002.