Supreme Court Says Wyeth Must Pay $60 Million Prempro Verdict-Zoe Littlepage

The United States Supreme Court denied Wyeth’s request for review of an almost $60 million verdict, ending a seven year fight between Wyeth and three Nevada women. In 2004, Geraldine Scofield, Arlene Rowatt and Pamela Forrester filed suit against Wyeth for failing to provide adequate warnings about the breast cancer risk of Prempro.  All three women developed breast cancer due to Wyeth’s hormone therapy drug Prempro. In October of 2007, these three cases were tried – in one consolidated trial - before Judge Robert Perry in Reno, Nevada (Rowatt, Forrester & Scofield v. Wyeth, Cause No. CV-04-01699).  The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs totaling $134.1 million.  On February 19, 2008, Judge Perry granted Wyeth’s motion to reduce the jury’s award and entered the following verdict:

          Arlene Rowatt:             Compensatory Damages:  $  7,557,027.00

                                                Punitive Damages:            $10,000,000.00

          Pamela Forrester:          Compensatory Damages:  $  7,961.481.00

                                                Punitive Damages:            $13,000,000.00

          Geraldine Scofield:       Compensatory Damages:  $  7,260,401.00

                                                Punitive Damages:            $12,000,000.00

          Award of Attorney Fees & Costs on April 11, 2008:     $  1,604,178.00

                                                TOTAL:                            $59,383,087.00

Wyeth appealed. On November 24, 2010, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the remitted verdict on all grounds.  The Nevada Supreme Court noted that the evidence at trial showed that:

-          Wyeth failed to conduct appropriate studies on breast cancer and concealed material facts about its products' safety (p. 35)

-          The warnings provided by Wyeth were misleading and “reassuring.” (p. 39)

-          Internal Wyeth documents showed that Wyeth responded to studies suggesting a possible breast cancer risk by downplaying the risk through public relations campaigns and its sales representatives' interactions with physicians. (p. 8)

-          Wyeth engaged in extensive ghost-writing of scientific articles in order to influence prescribing physicians.  Published under independent doctors' names, at least 51 ghostwritten medical articles touted the benefits of hormone replacement therapy while minimizing the breast cancer risk. (p. 11)

-          Wyeth implemented a policy to dismiss scientific studies that showed any link between breast cancer and hormone therapy drugs and to distract the public and medical professionals from the information. (p. 40)

-          Substantial evidence was introduced that Wyeth acted with malice, conduct that supports a punitive damage award. (p. 41)

Wyeth requested review of the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision by the United States Supreme Court.  That request was denied.  (Wyeth v. Scofield, No. 10-1177).

“Wyeth refused to accept responsibility for what it did to these three brave women.  Today, Wyeth can’t hide any more. These women will finally see justice.” said Zoe Littlepage of Littlepage Booth, lead trial counsel for Rowatt, Forrester & Scofield.