Austin man sues drug company, casinos after $14MM loss

[Meech]

They mave have saved "dozens of lives" but more than that, they have lined the pockets of "thousands of lawyers".

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
They mave have saved "dozens of lives" but more than that, they have lined the pockets of "thousands of lawyers".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, those stickers ought to have prevented the lining of pockets of thousands of lawyers. It's the absence of those stickers that would have lined the pockets of thousands of lawyers. Hence why hair-dryer makers like the stickers and why they're well worth their marignal cost when considering the liability protection they offer.

[ScottieK]

A few things.

According to the article, the guy's doctor put him on one med, and the guy reported compulsive gambling behavior. Doctor switched his med, same thing. So the doctor knew, and the guy knew. The losses occured from fall 2005 to January 2006.

Good point about the wife. The article says "she wasn't with him when he was gambling." So what? I'm positive she went on the cruise and the shopping sprees - did it ever occur to her WHY her husband was getting all this stuff and to ask? Or did she just figure it was a freeroll...hey, if he loses all this money, we'll just sue somebody to get it back?

The casinos knew because the Mayo Clinic sent notices to them about a study they did. Apparently, they also knew this particular guy was on the med. I'm thinking "why would they turn down a dream customer?" Does that mean they have to ask EVERY gambler in the pit "are you on meds for Parkinson's?" Even if somebody voluntarily puts themselves in the black book as a gambling addict, that doesn't mean the casino is liable for letting them in to gamble. And this guy is naming seven casinos in his lawsuit. Were all seven aware that he had this condition? If so, makes me think the guy knew exactly what was going on with himself.

I can only assume the Mayo Clinic also reported their findings to the drug company. But we all know how drug companies operate today: "in addition to paralysis and internal bleeding, side effects may also include compulsive gambling." (Side note - curious that all the compulsive behavior manifested itself in the form of gambling. Very odd.)

Yes, it does seem that our new motto is "it's not your fault" - nice one Natedogg, f#$^ it, let's put it on the currency. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

IF all the above is true, then I don't see how the casinos can be held liable even if they were aware of the man's situation. People go to casinos to gamble. And the casinos do everything (serve free drinks, oxygenate the pit, give away cruises) to make sure people gamble more, which is all perfectly legal. Is it their responsibility to make a drunk person leave the craps table just because he's losing his shirt? No, and they know he's drunk. Obviously, if the Wynn or whoever kicked this guy or a drunk guy out after dropping a cool million, he'd just go next door and drop money there....which it seems he did.

As for the drug company. I'm gonna take a flyer and guess they will settle with the plaintiff, esp. if the Mayo study results can be verified. Maybe pull the product temporarily and check it out. I'm not saying they're liable, just saying that's how companies deal with this sort of thing. If anyone but the guy is liable, I think the guy's doctor is liable because he prescribed the medicine, and the guy relied on the doctor's expertise.

But as mentioned above, people should also be responsible for researching the meds they take. Obviously the guy knew what was going on, but didn't stop taking the drugs until he was $14 mil in the hole. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

ScottieK

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
They mave have saved "dozens of lives" but more than that, they have lined the pockets of "thousands of lawyers".

[/ QUOTE ]

People really get fired up about this. Frankly, there are two kinds of lawyers, those that are for you and those that are for the corporations.

I don't understand why so many folks hate the advocates that can help them get settlements from companies that often times put money ahead of human well-being. Asbestos companies knew it was bad; Pfizer had information that its drugs would increase the chance of a heart attack. There are zillions of examples.

There are many corporate mouth pieces on talk radio that really drill the supposed evils of plaintiffs' attorneys into peoples minds. Personal attorneys are on your side and so what if some of them get a cut of the settlement?, you wouldn't get a thing if it werent for their efforts.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually I heard that McDonalds had been sued many times for serving coffee that was dangerously hot prior to the case that everyone remembers. I used to think that that case was ridiculous and then someone changed my mind when they laid out what had led up to that large punitive judgement. I don't know/care much about it so maybe someone can argue and make me think it was ridiculous again.

[/ QUOTE ]

The woman who sued McDonald's for spilling coffee on her lap is always one of the examples used to decry America's litigious society. However, this woman had a legitimate case. She suffered *severe* burns on her lap and inner thighs and had to be hospitalized. She didn't sue McDonalds for spilling coffee on her lap, she sued McDonalds for serving her *scalding hot* coffee that she subsequently spilled on her lap. She wasn't malingering, either, the pain she suffered was definitely real.

McDonalds had been warned on multiple ocassions that their coffee makers were overheating the coffee. The coffee was unsafe to ingest, and hot enough to burn skin on contact (I believe that they'd been sued before for similar injuries). However, McDonalds chose not to change their equipment. My guess is they looked at the potential cost of lawsuits vs. cost of replacing the equipment, and it was cheaper to leave the equipment as is. McDonalds *was* negligent, and the woman deserved compensation.

I seem to remember there being an article in Snopes on this subject, but I'm too lazy to look for it right now.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why so many folks hate the advocates that can help them get settlements from companies that often times put money ahead of human well-being.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could have something to do with the cheesy ambulance chaser lawyers advertising for dog-bites, slip & fall, etc.

Or perhaps the lawsuits where somebody blames a drug for their gambling and losing 14 million dollars.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
There are unpredictible reactions to everything, and I can't tell from the article just what or how much was known and/or disclosed from the drug company.

[/ QUOTE ]Yeah, there's not really enough information about whether they knew or not. Given that this seems to have happened with several people, and that the drug is manipulating neurotransmitters related to reward, I'd be surprised if there weren't at least clues that this drug could cause compulsive behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
Although to me, it's common sense to research the living hell out of any pharmaceutical chemical that goes in my body. There should be some information as to the side effects out there.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do this research on any drugs I take, but I don't think we can expect everyone to do it. First, the information packet included with the drug is almost always printed in 5 point type and is probably illegible to most seniors. Even if they could read it, they'd need at least an undergraduate degree in biology or chemistry to really understand it. Same with researching the literature on PubMed, which may be incomplete anyway because the drug company hasn't published all its results.

Fundamentally, people should be able to trust their physicians, and the physicians should be able to trust the information they get from the drug companies. We go to doctors because they have specialized knowledge and equipment, just like we go to mechanics to get our cars fixed. It may be prudent for individuals to research their medications and check on their mechanics, but that doesn't absolve the doctors/drug cos/mechanics from the responsibility of doing an honest job.

[ QUOTE ]
It's also common sense that any human being ought to take a step back and say "woah, I've lost [insert relatively small fraction of $14M here] already, maybe I should re-examine my life."

[/ QUOTE ]It should be common sense, but his claim is that the drug interfered with how his brain worked, and prevented him from using common sense.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the major problems with the tabacco company stemmed from teh fact that big tabacco MADE cigarettes deadly by lacing them with radioactive waste such as polonium and other nuclear materials and surpressed and lied about what they were and are doing, and also that they denied putting more nicotine into cigs to make them more addictive.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the major problems with the tabacco company stemmed from teh fact that big tabacco MADE cigarettes deadly by lacing them with radioactive waste such as polonium and other nuclear materials and surpressed and lied about what they were and are doing, and also that they denied putting more nicotine into cigs to make them more addictive.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

But why would a company do such a thing?


We obviously don't need trial lawyers to protect us. Lets just rip the hell out of them until there is a major societial stigma against them. Then let's see how we do agains the tabacco companies.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
But why would a company do such a thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because phosphate fertilizer high in radioactive waste is cheaper than low radiation fertilizer. Also, the american public is too stupid to google the keywords "polonium tobacco" much less understand the material.

Tobacco is not what is causing the insane amounts of smoking related cancer, it's the fertilizer. John Hopkins studies have shown this time and time again.