Widow of Reed Smith Partner Loses $3 Million Verdict on Appeal
A Chicago jury's $3 million award to the widow of former Reed Smith partner Stewart Dolin has been dismissed after an appeals court held that GlaxoSmithKline was prevented by the FDA from adding a suicide warning to the label for Paxil.
August 23, 2018 at 02:03 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
A federal appeals court has thrown out a $3 million verdict awarded last year to the widow of a former Reed Smith partner, ruling that federal law prohibited pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline plc from adding a suicide warning label to an antidepressant that the plaintiff argued caused her husband's death.
Former Reed Smith partner Stewart Dolin committed suicide in downtown Chicago in 2010 while taking a generic version of Paxil, a drug formerly manufactured by GSK. Dolin's widow, Wendy Dolin, sued GSK and alleged that the company covered up results of a clinical study that showed the drug paroxetine had caused suicides in adults. A federal jury in Chicago awarded Stewart Dolin's family $3 million in April 2017.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled Wednesday that the case should have been dismissed before trial because GSK was prevented in 2007 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from adding suicide as a warning for adults on the label for Paxil.
Manufacturers of generic drugs are required to use the same warning label from a drug's branded version, which led to the dismissal of generic drug manufacturer Mylan Inc. from Wendy Dolin's suit in 2014.
“GSK asked the FDA for permission to modify the paroxetine label as plaintiff argues was needed,” Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote for a three-judge panel. “The FDA said no, repeatedly. Federal law thus pre-empted plaintiff's Illinois law claim that GSK should have warned of a risk of adult suicidality on the paroxetine label in 2010.”
GSK had added a suicide warning for adults to its Paxil label in 2006, following its own study that showed a statistically significant increase in the risk of suicide among clinically depressed adults. But a broader review of trial data regarding antidepressants known as SSRIs by the FDA in 2007 was less conclusive.
The regulator required that all drugs in the SSRI family, including Paxil, use the same warning label that said “studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality … in adults beyond age 24,” said the Seventh Circuit in its ruling this week.
Following that 2007 decision by the FDA, GSK asked four times to update its Paxil label to include an adult suicide warning for paroxetine. The FDA refused those requests.
“These requests by GSK and the responses are clearly documented. They are not subject to reasonable dispute. This is clear evidence that, as of 2007, the FDA rejected an adult‐suicidality warning for paroxetine,” the Seventh Circuit said.
The trial last year shed light on the personal stress and anxiety that can be a side effect of Big Law mergers. GSK argued that the 57-year-old Stewart Dolin committed suicide as a result of fears of inadequacy and a potentially diminished role at Reed Smith, which he joined in 2007 when the global legal giant acquired Sachnoff & Weaver, where Dolin served on the midsize Chicago shop's management committee.
GSK turned to King & Spalding and Dentons for trial work and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer on appeal. Wendy Dolin was represented by lawyers from Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman and the Rapoport Law Offices in Chicago.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHelping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
Why Litigation Demand Might Break Firms’ Boom-and-Bust Cycle
Trending Stories
- 1A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 2Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 3State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 4Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 5Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250