If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MassLive)   Girl has bad reaction to ibuprofen, family wins lawsuit lottery   (masslive.com) divider line 63
    More: Stupid, mucous membranes, ibuprofens, compensatory damages, intestinal tract, strata  
•       •       •

4116 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Feb 2013 at 11:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-14 10:46:08 AM
Samantha was 7 when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen, family attorney Brad Henry said. She suffered a rare side effect known as toxic epidermal necrolysis and lost 90 percent of her skin and was blinded, he said.
...
The disease also seared Samantha's respiratory system, and she now has just 20 percent lung capacity, Henry said.


Lucky girl!
 
2013-02-14 10:47:35 AM
She suffered brain damage that "thankfully" involved only short-term memory loss, he said, and surgeons had to drill through her skull to relieve some pressure.

If only!
 
2013-02-14 11:57:01 AM
I'm sure the FDA will reimburse J&J for approving a dangerous drug.
 
2013-02-14 11:59:15 AM
Oh my FSM. After reading that, if I were her family, I'd rather not have that happen to my daughter than receive any amount of money. That's horrifying.
 
2013-02-14 12:01:16 PM
$63 Million?  Considering medical costs (past and future) and lawyer fees, the family will probably get to choose how to spend about $63 of that.
 
2013-02-14 12:03:12 PM
Lottery.. Like the one where they stone the winner to death?

Hell, money.. Pft.  I'd throw the money in a pile and burn it if it meant my daughter would have SKIN and SEE again.  Jesus.

Mind the Gap: $63 Million?  Considering medical costs (past and future) and lawyer fees, the family will probably get to choose how to spend about $63 of that.


Heh, they will be debt.
 
2013-02-14 12:12:49 PM
GIS -  toxic epidermal necrolysis

Ouch

/gonna need more Gold Bond
 
Xai
2013-02-14 12:28:06 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Samantha was 7 when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen, family attorney Brad Henry said. She suffered a rare side effect known as toxic epidermal necrolysis and lost 90 percent of her skin and was blinded, he said.
...
The disease also seared Samantha's respiratory system, and she now has just 20 percent lung capacity, Henry said.

Lucky girl!


FTA "$6.5 million to each of her parents. "

-$6.5m is more than I will ever earn in my entire life, why do her parents warrant payouts of that EACH? - this is awarded on top of the $50m she gets in damages and that $50m will more than cover any medical expenses.
 
2013-02-14 12:36:13 PM
I think calling that a "bad" reaction is a bit of an understatement.
 
2013-02-14 12:37:51 PM

Xai: tallguywithglasseson: Samantha was 7 when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen, family attorney Brad Henry said. She suffered a rare side effect known as toxic epidermal necrolysis and lost 90 percent of her skin and was blinded, he said.
...
The disease also seared Samantha's respiratory system, and she now has just 20 percent lung capacity, Henry said.

Lucky girl!

FTA "$6.5 million to each of her parents. "

-$6.5m is more than I will ever earn in my entire life, why do her parents warrant payouts of that EACH? - this is awarded on top of the $50m she gets in damages and that $50m will more than cover any medical expenses.


Yeah! Why do they deserve to be paid for their defective progeny that can't even take a simple Motrin without severe side effects?
 
2013-02-14 12:38:59 PM

Xai: -$6.5m is more than I will ever earn in my entire life, why do her parents warrant payouts of that EACH? - this is awarded on top of the $50m she gets in damages and that $50m will more than cover any medical expenses.


Lucky parents! I'll bet you hope you have a child who's blinded and loses 90% of their skin and 80% lung capacity, them maybe you could win the lottery, too!
 
2013-02-14 12:43:51 PM
FTFA: Samantha was 7 when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen

I would like to know if this was "Children's" Motrin or not before I determine who is at fault.

I think the adult stuff is not advised for kids under 12 without doctors approval.
 
2013-02-14 12:51:07 PM
I doubt they will ever get paid. This will be appealed and the award will be knocked down or thrown out once it hits a conservative judge.
 
2013-02-14 12:56:33 PM

SnarfVader: Oh my FSM. After reading that, if I were her family, I'd rather not have that happen to my daughter than receive any amount of money. That's horrifying.


Oh please. You can always have more kids. You can't always get a payday like this.
 
2013-02-14 01:10:53 PM
How is the drug company on the hook for $65 million dollars over a freak alergic reaction?  Was the medicine not properly made?  Contaminated?  Loaded with toxic waste?  It's horrifying what happened but finding the nearest associated company with money and laying the blame on them doesnt make any sense.
 
2013-02-14 01:23:30 PM
Wow.... that's crazy.
 
2013-02-14 01:29:33 PM
If that's "winning the lottery", I am a happy loser (and so is my son).
 
2013-02-14 01:40:16 PM
I take a lot of ibuprofen, and I get weird red blotches on my skin all of the time.

Hmm. Maybe I should stop.
 
2013-02-14 01:44:35 PM
Oh hey someone in Massachusetts needs to blame someone else for experiencing a one-in-a-billion event -- shocking!
 
2013-02-14 02:00:57 PM
If the United States had a universal health care system then almost all of that court award would be unnecessary.  The award presumes that they will be unable to pay for her medical care.
 
2013-02-14 02:02:36 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: FTFA: Samantha was 7 when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen

I would like to know if this was "Children's" Motrin or not before I determine who is at fault.

I think the adult stuff is not advised for kids under 12 without doctors approval.


FTFA: But the firm sought to defend Children's Motrin, saying it is "labeled appropriately" and when used as directed is "a safe and effective treatment option for minor aches and pains and fever."

I'm not sure why they would say that if it wasn't Children's Motrin.
 
2013-02-14 02:13:26 PM
After reading this headline, and the ensuing article, it is now my sincere hope that subby gets many opportunities at such a lottery him/herself. and gets a losing ticket.

/seriously subby, if this somehow seems like a fortunate turn of events, may you diaf after eabod.
 
2013-02-14 02:19:45 PM

The Singing Bush: Random Anonymous Blackmail: FTFA: Samantha was 7 when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen

I would like to know if this was "Children's" Motrin or not before I determine who is at fault.

I think the adult stuff is not advised for kids under 12 without doctors approval.

FTFA: But the firm sought to defend Children's Motrin, saying it is "labeled appropriately" and when used as directed is "a safe and effective treatment option for minor aches and pains and fever."

I'm not sure why they would say that if it wasn't Children's Motrin.


That's just cause ol' Random there don't read so good.
 
2013-02-14 02:45:19 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Xai: -$6.5m is more than I will ever earn in my entire life, why do her parents warrant payouts of that EACH? - this is awarded on top of the $50m she gets in damages and that $50m will more than cover any medical expenses.

Lucky parents! I'll bet you hope you have a child who's blinded and loses 90% of their skin and 80% lung capacity, them maybe you could win the lottery, too!


yeah. if i was the kid, i'd have killed myself as soon as i realized how farked my life was.

/unless i could clone myself a new body
 
2013-02-14 03:06:57 PM
The parents' claim was that the drug did not come packaged with the proper warnings, but could they honestly say that is there was some fine print on the box that said, "may cause allergic reaction in extremely rare cases," they would have done anything differently?
 
2013-02-14 03:34:59 PM

cefm: If the United States had a universal health care system then almost all of that court award would be unnecessary.  The award presumes that they will be unable to pay for her medical care.


Yea, I'm sure that's the logic and reason the jury used to come up with that number.

Please.
 
2013-02-14 03:37:53 PM

Xai: tallguywithglasseson: Samantha was 7 when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen, family attorney Brad Henry said. She suffered a rare side effect known as toxic epidermal necrolysis and lost 90 percent of her skin and was blinded, he said.
...
The disease also seared Samantha's respiratory system, and she now has just 20 percent lung capacity, Henry said.

Lucky girl!

FTA "$6.5 million to each of her parents. "

-$6.5m is more than I will ever earn in my entire life, why do her parents warrant payouts of that EACH? - this is awarded on top of the $50m she gets in damages and that $50m will more than cover any medical expenses.


Her parents have to care for her and their lives have been permanently altered. They had a healthy child and a happy life to look forward to. Now they don't. 6.5 million each does not begin to cover it. You obviously don't have children or you're a libertarian retard.
 
2013-02-14 03:54:12 PM

Mija: Her parents have to care for her and their lives have been permanently altered. They had a healthy child and a happy life to look forward to. Now they don't. 6.5 million each does not begin to cover it. You obviously don't have children or you're a libertarian retard


Not that it isn't a tragic situation, but I think a lot of people are confused as to why the company has to pay out that $63 million, and what makes them liable.
 
2013-02-14 03:54:34 PM

Mija: Her parents have to care for her and their lives have been permanently altered. They had a healthy child and a happy life to look forward to. Now they don't. 6.5 million each does not begin to cover it. You obviously don't have children or you're a libertarian retard.


The real question is why is J&J responsible to the tune of 63 million dollars?  This would have occurred at any point in this girls life with any brand. This is obviously an extremely rare condition otherwise no one would be taking ibuprofen out fear that it will make your skin fall off and cause blindness.   This isn't a defect in the product it's a defect in the person.
 
2013-02-14 04:00:37 PM
Sometimes bad things happen and it's nobodies fault. This was a freak occurrence with a product that is perfectly safe for the vast vast majority of people. it sucks but it's not johnson and johnson's fault
 
2013-02-14 04:02:56 PM

AdolfClamwacker: Mija: Her parents have to care for her and their lives have been permanently altered. They had a healthy child and a happy life to look forward to. Now they don't. 6.5 million each does not begin to cover it. You obviously don't have children or you're a libertarian retard.

The real question is why is J&J responsible to the tune of 63 million dollars?  This would have occurred at any point in this girls life with any brand. This is obviously an extremely rare condition otherwise no one would be taking ibuprofen out fear that it will make your skin fall off and cause blindness.   This isn't a defect in the product it's a defect in the person.


I'm just spit-balling here, but maybe they bought the Motrin because it did not have a warning on it and other ibuprofen did?  Like they looked at one boxes and said "hey this one says your skin can fall off, but this one doesn't.  I think I'll buy the one that doesn't make your skin fall off."  I'd like to emphasize that I do not know if that's the case or not, but if it is, I could see why J&J would be responsible.
 
2013-02-14 04:10:11 PM

Fizpez: How is the drug company on the hook for $65 million dollars over a freak alergic reaction? Was the medicine not properly made? Contaminated? Loaded with toxic waste? It's horrifying what happened but finding the nearest associated company with money and laying the blame on them doesnt make any sense.


In general, a legal duty relating to a defective product can arise in one of three ways:

1) Defective design - The product did what it was designed to do, but was designed in such a way that a dangerous but avoidable condition could result.  This likely doesn't apply to this case.  For this to apply, the plaintiff would have to show that the manufacturer could have created a product that still had the positive effects of Motrin but without this side effect.

2) Manufacturing defect - The product didn't work in the way it was intended, due to some problem in the way it was manufactured. Again, this likely doesn't apply for the reasons you have already stated (the product wasn't contaminated, wasn't manufactured incorrectly, etc.).

3) Failure to warn - If a product, even when manufactured correctly and used as intended, can result in harm the manufacturer has a duty to warn users of the potential hazard.  The hazardous result must be the result of a reasonable and foreseeable use.  The policy idea is to ensure that consumers are able to make an informed choice about the hazards of a particular product.  This is duty that applies in this case.  If the manufacturer knows that this reaction can result from the correct use (or even a reasonably foreseeable misuse) of the product then they must provide an adequate warning (that's why there are warnings not to use hairdryers or curling irons in the shower or bathtub, it's considered a 'reasonably foreseeable' misuse).

The issue in this case appears to be whether or not the warning was accurate enough for the parent to make an informed decision.  In theory, the plaintiff should also have to show that the lack of a warning 'caused' the harm.  Usually this means proving that you would not have used the product if the warning had been present (Lawyer: Had you known that this could have happened to your daughter, would you still have given her the medication? Mother (lying): No, of course not!).  It might also be shown by having an expert testify that the outcome would have been different had a warning been present because the doctors might have been better able to treat the condition.  This seems unlikely in this case, so it was likely the former rather than the latter.

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer but I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
 
2013-02-14 04:12:25 PM
Unless the specific pills this girl took had been contaminated or improperly made, I don't see how J&J is on the hook here.  You can have a side effect to anything and sometimes genetics is a cruel mistress.

I'd also say J&J should fry if they covered up a problem with their drug, but considering it was ibuprofen, that can't really be the case.

/it seems like some jury saw some horrifying photos of the young girl and it is sympathy money that won't survive an appeal
 
2013-02-14 04:17:40 PM

ha-ha-guy: Unless the specific pills this girl took had been contaminated or improperly made, I don't see how J&J is on the hook here. You can have a side effect to anything and sometimes genetics is a cruel mistress.


See above. The rule that leads to J&J's liability here is the same one that leads to warnings like "don't tie this plastic bag over the head of an infant" and "don't take this toaster in the bathtub with you." Product manufactures have a duty to warn people of hazards that may result from the correct use, or reasonably foreseeable misuse, or their products.  Even if the product was designed and manufactured correctly.
 
2013-02-14 04:19:24 PM

Talondel: The issue in this case appears to be whether or not the warning was accurate enough for the parent to make an informed decision.


My understanding though, is that you only have to put warnings on if there is about an X% chance of the side affect happening.  For example my wife is an oral surgeon and has a book that lists out pages and pages of warnings on drugs ("don't mix it with this", "don't use it if....", "may cause....") that aren't printed on the box or the bottle the pharmacist will give you.  So I guess it all comes down to if "will make your skin fall off and your head explode" happens frequently enough to make the label.

I'd also question if it printing it on the bottle in size 6 font really would have done anything anyway.  I've yet to ever read the back of whatever drugs I'm taking.  If it says Aleve on the front I just take some.  Every drug I avoid is one I've had an allergic reaction to and my doctor said "Hives hmmm, well X likely caused it, don't ever take anything with X in it again."
 
2013-02-14 04:26:07 PM
She should sue her parents for giving her the medicine.
 
2013-02-14 04:34:38 PM

ha-ha-guy: Talondel: The issue in this case appears to be whether or not the warning was accurate enough for the parent to make an informed decision.

My understanding though, is that you only have to put warnings on if there is about an X% chance of the side affect happening.  For example my wife is an oral surgeon and has a book that lists out pages and pages of warnings on drugs ("don't mix it with this", "don't use it if....", "may cause....") that aren't printed on the box or the bottle the pharmacist will give you.  So I guess it all comes down to if "will make your skin fall off and your head explode" happens frequently enough to make the label.

I'd also question if it printing it on the bottle in size 6 font really would have done anything anyway.  I've yet to ever read the back of whatever drugs I'm taking.  If it says Aleve on the front I just take some.  Every drug I avoid is one I've had an allergic reaction to and my doctor said "Hives hmmm, well X likely caused it, don't ever take anything with X in it again."


Exactly, those are the two issues that they would have had to overcome in trial.  1) Was the warning given adequate? and 2) Would the presence of a better warning had made a difference?  1) is tricky, because as you point out you don't have to disclose that "1 in 10,000,000 people who take this will develop a bit of a rash" but you do have to disclose "1 in 10 will develop a bit of a rash" and probably should disclose "1 in 10,000,000 will shed their skin, lose their lungs, suffer brain damage, and may die."  Really bad results that are really rare probably still need to be disclosed.  And given that this isn't the first person to suffer this exact result, it's not going to be hard to convince the jury that they should have had a better warning.  Most people don't think that 'severe allergic reaction' includes the symptoms this girl suffered.  2) Isn't tricky at all, at least if it makes it to a jury.  Because the only person who can really testify as to what they would have done had the warning been different is the plaintiff, and they can just lie.
 
2013-02-14 04:44:48 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/13/mass-girl-p a rents-awarded-motrin-lawsuit/9dHJac9YzY9qKwtyIxecuM/story.html

According to that article what happened was in the past Samantha had been given Childrens Motrin without any reaction.  In 2003 over Thanksgving when she was given some she had an adverse reaction that ended with the skull drilling and all that.  The parents are claiming that had Motrin had a warning label they wouldn't have given her more (it sounds like during the 2003 incident she had a minor reaction that first but kept taking it as a fever reducer until things got really bad).

Obviously only the jury heard both sides fully, but I have to admit I'm likely to remain somewhat skeptical. Every drug I've ever seen has a warning label about "if you feel anything abnormal, stop taking this".  I think even my mouthwash has it on it for farks sake.  I'd imagine what likely happened is when the reaction started her parents though "Well it can't be the Motrin, it's just some over the counter painkiller and she's taken it many times before with no issue.  It must be something else."  I just have to question the odds different wording on the warning label would have made a difference.  Be interesting to see how J&J does on their appeal.

/for what is worth the Aleve bottle in the office medical kit has a warning about stop taking me if you get a rash
 
2013-02-14 04:49:31 PM

Talondel: 2) Isn't tricky at all, at least if it makes it to a jury.  Because the only person who can really testify as to what they would have done had the warning been different is the plaintiff, and they can just lie.


I'd imagine it is also hard to get the parents on the stand and really brutally cross examine them about how well they read every warning label ever and why they didn't hit the brakes on the Motrin or go to an ER earlier.  The jury will have a lot of sympathy for the people who had their poor daughter's life ruined and the lawyer for J&J will just look like a dick.
 
2013-02-14 04:53:43 PM
I think the pertinent info was the part about another child suffering from the same situation.  One time allergic reaction is horrible, but a second one makes everyone all paranoid.
 
2013-02-14 05:08:39 PM

ha-ha-guy: Obviously only the jury heard both sides fully, but I have to admit I'm likely to remain somewhat skeptical. Every drug I've ever seen has a warning label about "if you feel anything abnormal, stop taking this". I think even my mouthwash has it on it for farks sake. I'd imagine what likely happened is when the reaction started her parents though "Well it can't be the Motrin, it's just some over the counter painkiller and she's taken it many times before with no issue. It must be something else." I just have to question the odds different wording on the warning label would have made a difference. Be interesting to see how J&J does on their appeal.


As you note, obviously we can only speculate as to exactly what the jury saw.  But let's take this is an example.  Currently, if you go to motrin's website and click on 'warnings' you get this:

Warnings
Allergy alert:
Ibuprofen may cause a severe allergic reaction, especially in people allergic to aspirin. Symptoms may include:
    hives
    facial swelling
    asthma (wheezing)
    shock
    skin reddening
    rash
    blisters
If an allergic reaction occurs, stop use and seek medical help right away.


So yes, as you note there's a warning that says to stop taking this if you get the following symptoms.  What there *isn't* is a warning that ibuprofen can cause toxic epidermal necrolysis, or a notice that allergic reactions can be fatal.

Compare the warning above to the information that is provided to doctors about the side effects of ibuprofen:

NSAIDs, including MOTRIN (ibuprofen) tablets, can cause serious skin adverse events such as exfoliative dermatitis, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), which can be fatal. These serious events may occur without warning. Patients should be informed about the signs and symptoms of serious skin manifestations and use of the drug should be discontinued at the first appearance of skin rash or any other sign of hypersensitivity.

Note that there are at least three (arguably) important differences between the warnings.  1) Reference to specific conditions, including TEN. 2) Notice that the reaction can be fatal.  3) Notice that they can occur without warning.  In general, the second warning is scary as hell, and certainly might make a person think twice about taking it.  The first warning doesn't really give any indication that a 'severe allergic reaction' can include loss of lung function, brain damage, and death.  With the exception of 'shock' it talks about very superficial and treatable symptoms.

So from the perspective of a trial lawyer, this is actually a pretty easy case.  You show the jury the actual warning on the bottle.  Then you show the warning that doctors get.  And you ask "Why don't you put the scarier warning, the one that includes the exact condition that effected my client, on the package?"  You follow that up with a couple of questions that are designed to imply that the real reason is that fewer people would buy the product if it the scary warning ("It isn't because your market research showed people were less likely to but your product if it contained the scary language?" the great thing about that question is you don't care what the answer is).  Now you put your client on the stand and say "You saw the warning information that this company provides to doctors, but withholds from consumers.  Did you know at the time you gave this to your daughter that it could cause the toxic epidermal necrolysis that nearly killed your little girl and left her in this condition?" "No, I wish I had known, I'd give anything to have known that."  "Had you been warned prior to giving this to your daughter that it could result in lung damage, brain damage, and death, would you still have given it to her? "Of course not! I love my little girl and I would never do anything to put her health at risk!"

Boom.  On to damages.
 
2013-02-14 05:09:23 PM
Ok fine, I'll be the one to say it. I'd like to know what the girl (with 90% of her skin melted off) looks like now.
 
2013-02-14 05:26:50 PM

rtaylor92: Ok fine, I'll be the one to say it. I'd like to know what the girl (with 90% of her skin melted off) looks like now.


I'm a lawyer not a doctor, but I have some experience with people who have suffered this condition (actually a similar but far less severe condition, exfoliative dematitis).

I can't find any images of people who have recovered from this using GIS, only people currently suffering (if you're squeamish, don't even think about it).

It's absolute hell to go through, but as far as the outward appearance of the skin is concerned, most people make a full recovery.  Most of the time the skin returns, but may be blotchy and either over or under pigmented, which may require avoiding direct sunlight.  It's not typically scarred, so they may appear outwardly normal. So if you're thinking 'burn victim', no it doesn't normally look like that (though it can).   However, if the condition causes the retinas to separate, that will lead to permanent blindness.  If it has caused the linings of the lung to separate, that will lead to decreased lung function.  It can cause swelling in the brain which can lead to all kinds of brain problems.  In women it can effect the lining of the uterus which may lead to sterility.  It can lead to loss of sensation in the extremeties.

From a lawyers perspective it's a gold mine, because the victims usually survive but will suffer from a variety of incurable ills that tend to lead to very high damage awards (as was the case here).  Any time a victim is young the award will tend to be very high because it can effect both their future earning potential, future medical costs, and future enjoyment, and those are typically awarded on a 'yearly' basis.  So someone who will lose out on 50 years of earnings (say $20,000 a year), and have 70 years of extra medical expenses (say $20,000 a year), the numbers add up really quickly.  That's $2.4 million already just for future damages, and those are conservative estimates.
 
2013-02-14 05:35:31 PM

Talondel: So yes, as you note there's a warning that says to stop taking this if you get the following symptoms.  What there *isn't* is a warning that ibuprofen can cause toxic epidermal necrolysis, or a notice that allergic reactions can be fatal.


This is why I hate people and lawyers sometimes.  To my engineering mind, writing out toxic epidermal necrolysis is pointless since its symptoms are listed, fever, skin rash, etc.  Do you care if you have toxic epidermal necrolysis?  No, you care you're having some kind of adverse reaction and should get your ass to a hospital where a doctor will figure it out.

Same with the allergies part, your average human should be smart enough to know a severe allergic reaction could be fatal and you don't need it printed on every warning label ever made.

The data you need to know is there, if you see these symptoms get medical help.

I suppose this is why the corporate lawyers at work once told me sometimes you don't try to win in front of the jury, because the level at which you'd have to fight to win would cost you millions in bad PR.  Instead you aim for an appeals court down the road that doesn't come with a jury to be horrified by "my poor child, I never would have done X had I know" stories.
 
2013-02-14 05:47:09 PM

rtaylor92: Ok fine, I'll be the one to say it. I'd like to know what the girl (with 90% of her skin melted off) looks like now.




Thank you

/tits or GTFO
 
2013-02-14 05:58:58 PM

ha-ha-guy: This is why I hate people and lawyers sometimes. To my engineering mind, writing out toxic epidermal necrolysis is pointless since its symptoms are listed, fever, skin rash, etc. Do you care if you have toxic epidermal necrolysis? No, you care you're having some kind of adverse reaction and should get your ass to a hospital where a doctor will figure it out.


Eh, I'm ambivalent.  I think the warning as currently written on their website is insufficient.  It's insufficient because it *doesn't* list all the symptoms of TEN or SJS, which include things a hell of a lot more serious that just a rash.  I for one certainly do care if I may have TEN or SJS and not just a 'rash' or 'blisters'.  There's a difference between a warning that says "If you get these seek immediate medical attention because you need help" and "If you get these you should seek immediate medical attention because you might lose lung function, suffer brain damage, blindness, sterility, or death."  One of those warnings is more effective (and more accurate) than the other.  The warning provided was insufficient.  Now, would the parent actually have done anything differently if there had been a better warning?  No.  Almost certainly not.  But after this verdict I bet the warning gets better.
 
2013-02-14 06:01:19 PM

gund goat: Sometimes bad things happen and it's nobodies fault. This was a freak occurrence with a product that is perfectly safe for the vast vast majority of people. it sucks but it's not johnson and johnson's fault


After years of eating peanuts, or strawberries, or any number of other things, rare alergic reactions can occur that can maim and kill. It's horrible, it's tragic, but it's life.
 
2013-02-14 06:15:12 PM
I had Stevens-Johnson syndrome from a bad reaction to bactrim (antibiotic) in 2009.  I went back after 3 days because I was having severe headaches, he said that was normal reaction and to keep taking it.  Needless to say within 3 more days it started as a rash and just got worse and worse to the point where my whole chest, back, neck, upper arms, upper legs and junk were hellboy red, had a puffy leathery texture and peeling all over the place.  Felt like I was stuck in a fire and couldn't get out, couldn't move couldn't lay down, couldn't sit down, couldn't do anything without hurting.  Putting cold washcloths on it didn't work because the rough texture of them would just cause it to hurt even more.   Being that I didn't have insurance I sure as hell didn't go to the hospital and really thought I was going to die but was actually looking forward to it to just end the pain.

It ended up lasting around 1 1/2 months and then I would constantly get pains like i was getting punched in the kidney every 3-10 minutes or so that lasted for over a year.  Lost my job, etc... and still have issues stemming from that.  Only consolation I got was the DR apparently got fired as his name was taken off the office when I drove by a few months later.  Of course that's what you get for going to doc in a box where you pay $250 for him to not listen to anything you say for 3 mins, write a script for antibiotics and leave.

The wiki on this said that TEN is worse than that.  Hell if I could comprehend how much pain she could have been in as SJS was a 999/10 on a scale of how much it hurt. Yeah they deserve the money and then some. That's pain to the point a bullet would be kinder.
 
2013-02-14 06:29:25 PM

Talondel: Now, would the parent actually have done anything differently if there had been a better warning?  No.  Almost certainly not.  But after this verdict I bet the warning gets better.


Your first part touches on one of the big issues I have.  I'd feel a lot more comfortable if say J&J got the shiat fined out of it and all that money went to Saint Judes or various child healthcare funds as opposed to $109 million to the parents, plus the lawyer's cut.  I really doubt their total cost of care was $109 million and lost wages can't even some close to that (40 years in the work force at 80k a year is 32 million).  I'd be happier with J&J having to give her a nice trust fund and the FDA coming by to beat them up for the rest.

With the second part, the cynic in me says while the warning gets better, I bet this will happen:

The new Children's Motrin will have some big pull tab type label where you can pull it off and unfold more pages.  So the the next case will be "Well the specific symptoms for fatal condition X were buried on the third page in size 6 font, how you could expect the parent to see that in time?".  to someone it will always be 'the specific problem of my patient was not in size 14 font right beneath the brand name, so the label could have been better'.

/or why not go sue their general health provider for failing to provide them a pamphlet on the threats of common over the counter medicine?
//especially if the that doctor had said "Yeah Children's Motrin is good for fevers, get that."  and then didn't spend the next twenty minutes reading everything out of the book of warnings
 
2013-02-14 08:10:38 PM
Shut these killers down.  Now.  The poison they pedal has no place in our society.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report