Connecticut Injury Attorney Blog

A Connecticut jury has entered a verdict finding pharmaceutical company Pfizer, Inc. liable for a woman's breast cancer, which she developed after taking the company's menopause drug Prempro. Prempro was a product of Wyeth, a drug company acquired by Pfizer while the suit was pending. The jury found that Prempro is a "dangerous product," and that Wyeth failed to test for certain risks, failed to warn consumers of certain risks, and misrepresented the information on risks that it possessed. Pfizer, which took on Wyeth's liabilities, must pay up to $4 million in damages to Margaret Fraser and her husband, Joseph Fraser. The court will also determine an amount of punitive damages owed to the plaintiffs.

Prempro is a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone, used to treat menopause symptoms. A study released by the National Institutes of Health in 2002 reportedly linked the drug to an elevated risk of cancer. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2009 found a link between the drug and breast cancer, as well as an increased risk of death from lung cancer. The study says that fifteen to twenty percent of postmenopausal women in America use this drug.

According to the Frasers' complaint, Margaret Fraser took Prempro, as prescribed by her gynecologist, between November 1998 and September 2001. A routine mammogram in September 2001 found a cluster in her left breast, which proved to be invasive hormone-positive ductal carcinoma. She underwent a lumpectomy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and a course of tamoxifen.

The Frazers filed suit against Wyeth in August 2004, alleging that Wyeth violated Connecticut's Product Liability Act by failing to warn consumers of the risk of cancer from their product and by misrepresenting the risks. The complaint alleges both negligence and strict liability against Wyeth, and alleges that the company breached both express and implied warranties. Margaret Fraser claimed damages for medical expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and lost enjoyment of life and economic benefits. Joseph Fraser claimed damages for loss of consortium, anxiety, and mental anguish. The plaintiffs also claimed punitive damages.

Continue reading "Jury Awards Connecticut Woman $4 Million in Products Liability Suit Against Pharmaceutical Company" »

The Connecticut Supreme Court took an unusual step in a recent decision, overruling its own prior decision. The current case, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Pendleton King, began with a dispute between the parent of an injured child and another parent. The case developed into a dispute between the defendant and the defendant's insurance company over whether the insurer received adequate pre-litigation notice of a claim. The court, in holding that the burden rests with the insurance company to prove prejudice caused by late notice, has altered an important aspect of the insurance claims process, one that could possibly have far-reaching impact on Connecticut personal injury attorneys and their clients.

King's teenage son was driving his parents' all-terrain vehicle (ATV) in 2002, using a nine-foot rope to tow another boy on a skateboard. The boy being towed, Conor McEntee, let go of the rope and fell, suffering serious head trauma that caused him to be hospitalized with a temporary coma.

The King and McEntee families reportedly continued to socialize after the accident, and the McEntees did not tell the Kings they intended to bring a claim for Conor's injuries. Over a year after the accident, the Kings received a letter from an attorney representing the McEntees. The attorney notified them of the McEntees' intent to claim damages for the accident. The Kings, through their insurance broker, presented the claim to their insurance carrier. They had homeowner's and umbrella liability policies through the insurer. The insurance company, later substituted by Arrowood Indemnity Company, filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming that it had been prejudiced by the McEntees' late notice of their claim, and that therefore it was not obligated under its contract with the Kings to defend or indemnify the Kings.

The Connecticut Supreme Court had ruled in a 1988 case, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Murphy, that the burden of disproving prejudice in a case of late or delayed notice of a claim fell on the insured. The court reasoned that, since the insured was the party seeking to enforce the terms of a contract despite not abiding by his own contractual obligations, the insured should have to show how enforcing the contract against the insurer would not unfairly prejudice the insurer.

The court in Arrowood explicitly overruled Murphy, holding that the insurer must prove by a preponderance of evidence that a delay in notice has caused prejudice. The court noted that courts in many other jurisdictions have ruled that the insurer has the burden of proving prejudice. It also noted the difficulty of "proving a negative," which is what the insured would have to do under Murphy. This could "prevent the court from meaningfully weighing the parties' real interests."

Continue reading "Connecticut Supreme Court Overrules Its Own Caselaw Regarding Insurance Claims for Personal Injuries" »

The Connecticut Supreme Court issued an order on Thursday, November 10, 2011 reinstating convictions for manslaughter and driving while intoxicated for Tricia Coccomo, as reported by the Stamford Advocate. An appellate court had reversed her convictions in 2009 and ordered a new trial based on questions of evidence presented by prosecutors. The case arose from a 2005 automobile accident that killed three people. This criminal case exists independently of any claim by the victims' families for damages and wrongful death, but it demonstrates the often close relationship between our civil and criminal legal systems.

The accident at the heart of this case occurred in July 2005 on Long Ridge Road in Stamford, when Coccomo's vehicle veered across the median and struck a convertible carrying three people head-on. All three occupants of that vehicle died. Police collected a blood sample from Coccomo and the three victims and later said that Coccomo's sample showed intoxication at three times the legal limit.

Coccomo was charged with manslaughter and driving while intoxicated. A jury convicted her of both charges in 2007 and sentenced her to twelve years in prison. The prosecution's case apparently relied almost exclusively on the blood alcohol test results. Another piece of evidence presented at the trial by the prosecution involved Coccomo's alleged sale of her house to her mother for a tiny sum of money ten days after the accident. While this has little relevance to the questions of whether she caused the crash or whether she was driving while intoxicated, the prosecution seemed to hope it would show an attempt to protect assets from the victims' families and, therefore, a guilty conscience.

Continue reading "Connecticut Supreme Court Reinstates Guilty Verdict in Fatal 2009 Car Crash" »

Consumers in Connecticut and other States who purchase generic drugs instead of brand name prescriptions have had an important legal remedy taken away as a result of a ruling just issued by the United States Supreme Court A divided Court has ruled that those injured or killed by generic brand prescription drugs because the product warnings were inadequate to explain and articulate the risks of taking the medicine can no longer sue the manufacture for damages. A wrongful death or Personal injury claim could still be brought it would appear if the drug were manufactured defectively or designed improperly in a situation where either of which circumstance caused harm. However, if there was simply inadequate information disclosed within the product literature to somebody who went into a CVS pharmacy store in Hartford, for example, resulting in their consuming the drug and suffering harm, their legal remedy now has disappeared against the manufacturer and likely the seller of the generic drugs. Since almost 75% of all prescriptions sold are generic( and cheaper than brand name equivalents) this is a big deal to the consumers.

Continue reading "Generic Drug Manufacturers shielded from Product Warnings Liability" »