Defending claims related to prescribing drugs or using medical devices

Russell G. Thornton, JD

From Stinnett, Thiebaud & Remington, LLP, Dallas, Texas.

Corresponding author: Russell G. Thornton, JD, Stinnett, Thiebaud & Remington, LLP, 4800 Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 (e-mail: rthornton@strlaw.net).

Review of health care liability claims since the early 1990s shows that without interruption there has been some form of mass tort litigation involving medical devices or products. The 1990s began with the breast implant litigation that is finally now in its last death throes. The breast implant litigation was succeeded by the pedicle screw litigation, which was followed quickly by a short course of claims that focused on the Norplant birth control device. This was followed by claims that involved the diet drugs fenfluramine (Pondimin), dexfenfluramine (Redux), and phentermine (so-called “fen-phen” cases). After more than 3 years, these claims seem to be finally winding down. Now we are dealing with recent multimillion dollar judgments rendered in connection with troglitazone (Rezulin) and cisapride (Propulsid). Earlier this year, cerivastatin sodium (Baycol) was pulled from the market. Given this history, it is not unreasonable to expect future claims over that medication. This history also tells us that there will be further litigation related to medical devices and medications in the future. (BUMC Proceedings 2002;15:102-104)