Baxter Having Issues Passing New Heparin-Potency Test

0 comments

Posted on 15th March 2010 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , ,

Baxter International, the maker of the blood thinner heparin, says it’s encountering problems having its drug pass a stricter drug-potency test, according to the magazine Modern Healthcare. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20100315/NEWS/303159895

The update that has Baxter troubled has been devised by U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP), and provides potency reading for heparin that are 10 percent greater than the old test.

“It’s taking us a bit longer than anticipated to meet the requirements of the new test,” Baxter spokeswoman Kellie Hotz told Modern Healthcare.

She added that Baxter has been talking to the Food and Drug Administration about way it can meet the new USP standard.

The heparin that is currently being testing is pre-mixed product, not the concentrated vial product that was investigated by the FDA last year, Hotz told Modern Healthcare.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Heparin Wrongful Death Trials Start in January of 2011

0 comments

Posted on 11th September 2009 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

In our previous blogs, we discussed the filing of more than 150 Heparin wrongful death cases against Baxter in Cook County, Illinois. The Court has had many case management conferences including one where the first trial dates are set to begin in January of 2011. That is now little more than a year away.

The cases in Cook County, Illinois are supervised by the Honorable Judge Duncan-Brice. The judge has approved various pre-trial orders including a protective order designating documents produced during discovery as “confidential,” He has also allowed plaintiffs’ counsel to act as personal representatives of potential clients, solely for the purpose of obtaining relevant medical and pharmaceutical records. He has further ordered the defendants to disclose to plaintiff’s lead counsel all ongoing medical and scientific studies and identification of contaminated lots.

Despite the entry of the foregoing orders, there are still numerous items that the court and all parties have to consider, such as the litigation calendar for the consolidated cases, and the manner by which these cases will be tried. To date, the judge has not set a deadline for discovery, nor has the court ruled if exemplar plaintiff cases will be designated. These matters will be addressed in future court dates. Nevertheless, a trial date has been scheduled for January 17, 2011.

Cases involving the Heparin contamination have in addition been filed in the Federal District Court in Ohio (MDL Litigation). Discovery in both proceedings is being coordinated for efficiency. With over a million documents to review, that is a necessity. The Nolan Law Group was appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated state court cases and likewise serves as a member of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee in the MDL litigation.

As a member of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee, the Nolan Law Group is in charge of all document reviews relating to product distribution and identification. One responsibility of the said product identification subcommittee deals with the identification of Heparin product lots which are suspected of being contaminated, but have not been publicly acknowledged by Baxter. If proven, these newly identified contaminated products may not only extend the time frame of the contamination back to a much earlier date, but also expand the categories of contaminants in the tainted Heparin. These developments will surely make the plot even thicker!

More on these “product identification” issues in our coming blogs.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Heparin Deaths – Moving the Case Towards Trial

0 comments

Posted on 10th September 2009 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , ,

In our previous blog, we discussed the filing of more than 150 wrongful death cases against Baxter with respect to their sale and distribution of contaminated heparin in Cook County, Illinois. Today, we begin our discussion of the process those cases are going thru prior to trial. When a lawsuit is filed, it typically takes more than a year before it can be tried. Both sides have a right to put together their case and both sides have the right to find out what the other parties case is about. Deadlines are created for each side to name the expert witnesses upon which they will rely and to provide evidence to rebut the claims of the other side.

In addition, normally from very early on in the litigation, witnesses who have factual information about the events of what happened will be deposed. When the litigation is a complex as Baxter Heparin wrongful death litigation, things move slower than in an automobile accident case. The process of taking depositions and finding out what the other side is claiming, is called “discovery.”

The Illinois cases are currently in the stage of “discovery” after the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike all affirmative defenses alleged in their Answer by defendants Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corporation (collectively “Baxter”). An affirmative defense is a claim by a defendant that even if all of the allegations against them are true, they still don’t have any responsibility for any number of technical reasons. The Court found that none of these technical claims protected Baxter from accountability here.

Plaintiffs have submitted to Baxter’s counsel their individual Plaintiff’s Fact Sheets in accordance with the judge’s orders, and defendants have been ordered to submit their own fact sheets in response to each case which has been filed against them. In addition, requests for production to and from the defendants (a form of written request that a party turn over documents) have been served and received. More than one million documents having been produced by defendants. Subpoenas for records have likewise been issued for all major Heparin drug distributors in order to establish the contaminated product’s chain of custody.

Oral depositions on key Baxter personnel are currently underway. On April 2, 2009, plaintiffs’ counsel took the deposition of Marie Keeley, Baxter’s Vice President for Business Operations, in order to gain a deeper understanding of Baxter’s existing sales and product distribution system. Other depositions scheduled involve Amy Gierytich and Tom Progar, Baxter employees who have been directly involved in handling Baxter’s first and second recall of Heparin products in January and February 2008, from recall strategy formulation and implementation to dealings with the Federal Food and Drug Authority and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Baxter’s Vice President for Global Medical and Clinical Affairs, Francois Lebel, will also be deposed as well as Baxter’s designee of the person with greatest knowledge on causation.

In our next blog, we will discuss timing and future trial dates.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Heparin Deaths – The March Towards Justice

0 comments

Posted on 9th September 2009 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , ,

In February of 2008, Attorney Donald J. Nolan and I began our advocacy with respect to the absolutely outrageous actions of Baxter and SPL with respect to the importation without quality controls of the intravenous drug Heparin. The FDA had just recalled nine lots of heparin because it appeared to be killing people. Over time the recall grew and our advocacy spread to representing dozens of the families of those that had died as a result of this catastrophe. Our advocacy at http://heparin-law.com spawned the first wrongful death claim against Baxter filed in its home state of Illinois, the case of plaintiff, Mark Scott, against Baxter International, Inc., et. al., That first Cook County case has grown in size and scope.

To date, more than 150 plaintiffs have sued in Cook County, Illinois, for damages arising from personal injury and strict product liability caused by the administration of contaminated Heparin. In addition to Baxter, other Heparin drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in these actions, such as Medefil Inc., Covidien, Inc. and B. Braun Medical, Inc., just to name a few. All of these cases have been consolidated with the Honorable Judge Jennifer Duncan-Brice, who attorney Nolan as lead counsel for the consolidated state court cases.

I remember the first conversation between Attorney Nolan and myself. He had sent me a newspaper clipping from the Chicago Tribune talking about the initial recall. I knew very little about heparin, but it was clear from the beginning that Baxter was involved in something serious and severe. When I began to dig, it became clear that rarely had American Justice seen such a clear cut case of product liability. Despite knowing that heparin would be put in the veins of our sickest people, Baxter delegated the manufacture of this drug to a Chinese manufacturer who knew nothing about the drug and cared even less about its purity.

With this continued advocacy on behalf of those harmed by this reckless quality control of heparin, we hope that ultimately justice will be done for those harmed. We also hope that Corporate America, make that Corporate World, will learn that safety must come first. The lesson that should never have been learned? If you are talking about a pharmaceutical – sterility and purity is an absolute.

In our next blog, we will discuss some of the procedural issues in the pending Cook County actions.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Heparin – Frequently Asked Questions Part II

0 comments

Posted on 13th March 2009 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

2. When did the Heparin return to being Safe?

Officially, all of the contaminated heparin should have been off the shelves by April of last year. However, recalling millions of vials of contaminated heparin is an enormously complex process, especially in hospital settings where different supplies of heparin may have been commingled. If the your loved ones death or catastrophic reaction after heparin fits the resembles an alergic reaction to a bee sting type, call us regardless of how recently the adverse event occurred.

3. How severe of a reaction should we have before calling a lawyer?

All cases of death should be investigated especially those after January 1, 2007 until the present day as I write this in March of 2009. Further, all cases of “severe consequences” should also be investigated. “Severe consequences” means adverse reactions involving significant additional medical care, hospitalization or damage to any body organ or limb.

For example, if heart damage occurred, you should call. If the heart stopped and the body was deprived of oxygen or blood flow for a documented period of time, you should call. If there was gangrene or injury to any limb, you should call. There may even be cases of amputation resulting from contaminated heparin. All such cases should be identified.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Heparin – Frequently Asked Questions Part I

0 comments

Posted on 13th March 2009 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

Heparin FAQ’s

The Heparin Catastrophe has left thousands of people with questions. We have heard most of them we over and over, and have done our best to answer those we could. Many answers are still unknown. In those thousands of heparin conversations, we have been asked tens of thousands of questions. Below and the series of blogs to follow are our answers to the most frequently asked questions.

1. When did the Heparin contamination begin?

Baxter claims it started shipping contaminated Heparin on September 13, 2007, but we believe there is at least circumstances that make us believe that it may have started sooner. This September 13, 2007 start date means that any death or severe consequences occurred in the administration of heparin after that date, requires an investigation. Baxter claims to have tested all heparin shipped from China, even going back years and has alleged that the OSCS contaminant began on that date. But the conditions that allowed for this contaminant and didn’t properly test for it, leaves doubts as the purity of Heparin even before that date.

While at one time we felt fairly comfortable turning down cases that occurred before that time, we are no longer doing so just based on that September date. As additional disclosures have trickled in, we are seeing more and more evidence that clearly suggests some contaminated heparin was in the supply chain earlier in 2007, especially in hospital settings, such as in cardiac surgery. If you know of a death or severe consequence following heparin administration at any time in 2007, call us and we will investigate.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

MANUFACTURERS MAY HAVE RECEIVED CONTAMINATED HEPARIN AS EARLY AS 2006

0 comments

Posted on 20th November 2008 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , ,

11/20/2008

Despite previous beliefs that Heparin contaminated with over sulfated chondroitin sulfate was in circulation in the United States beginning in the Fall of 2007, new information confirms that several manufacturers received contaminated heparin API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) from Scientific Protein Laboratories, L.L.C. as early as December 2006.

This means that contaminated finished heparin could have been ingested by patients in the U.S. earlier than Fall of 2007. Companies who received contaminated Heparin API before Fall of 2007 include B. Braun, Covidien, Becton Dickinson, Beckman, Emisphere, and Medefil.

This information about the heparin catastrophe is provided by Attorney Gordon Johnson, in conjunction with the Nolan Law Group of Chicago, IL. The Johnson Law Office is affiliated with The Nolan Law Group on Heparin litigation. The Nolan Law Group is presently involved in the litigation on behalf of those affected by the distribution of contaminated heparin.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Heparin-bonded Catheters

1 comment

Posted on 17th October 2008 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , ,

Heparin-bonded catheters are used to prolong the patency of central venous catheters in children. According to The Cochrane Collaboration (a database of systematic reviews of world healthcare),

“Central venous catheters are used for prolonged intravenous therapy in the management of critically ill children, for parenteral nutrition, medication and monitoring. Having these catheters in place can cause blood clots in or around the end of the catheter as well as infection, either local or a blood stream infection. As a result, the catheter becomes blocked, eventually to the point that it is occluded and can no longer be used to give fluids. Anticoagulant drugs such as heparin can be given to prolong the usefulness of the catheter or the catheters coated with heparin (heparin-bonded catheters). Heparin can cause side effects such as bleeding, allergic reactions, induced thrombocytopenia (an abnormal drop in the number of platelets in the blood) and osteoporosis with long-term use.”

It is not clearly established how much heparin increases the patency of catheters, “There was a trend towards the heparin-bonded catheter reducing the risk of catheter-related thrombosis over the time the catheter was in and a trend towards reduction in the risk of catheter occlusion in the first week after catheter placement.”

Heparin is intended to reduce the risks of catheter-related infections and other problems. Clearly, studies are not based on the incidence of contaminated lots of heparin which introduce risks and risk factors not included in clinical trials. The advantage of using a heparin-bonded catheter over a standard catheter is not a clear advantage, but exposing children to contaminated heparin would not be seen as preferable on any level.

– Baby O. was born March 9, 2007 with choroid plexus carcinoma (brain tumor).  He underwent surgery to remove the entire tumor and began chemotherapy in April.  To administer his treatment, doctors inserted a broviac catheter that was flushed with heparin twice daily to prevent the catheter from clogging.  Until September 2007, Baby O. was responding positively to chemotherapy and was showing signs of improvement. Late that month, however, he suddenly began suffering from respiratory distress, went into renal failure and ultimately passed away on November 19, 2007.  Baby O.’s physicians were baffled by the sudden unexplained deterioration in his condition.  

On August 26, 2008, Nolan Law Group filed a wrongful death case in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, located in Chicago, against Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corporation.  

– In January of this year, Little Girl B was diagnosed with a subdural empyema (pus on the brain sometimes caused by sinusitis).  Little Girl B underwent surgery with no complications that successfully removed the pus.  After the procedure, physicians inserted a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC line) for antibiotic medication to prevent post-surgery infection.  The PICC line was flushed with heparin to keep the antibiotics free-flowing.  Doctors expected Little Girl B to fully recover, but soon after they began administering heparin flushes, Little Girl B. developed a high fever and was re-hospitalized.  Blood tests came back negative for infection despite Little Girl B.’s increasing symptoms which included a rash, very low blood pressures, nausea, vomiting and seizures.   Little Girl B. passed away on February 9, 2008.

Nolan Law Group filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corporation on October 7, 2008.  

Heparin-bonded catheters, on theory, were meant to give a promising edge to children in high risk situations. The results were far less than hoped for when contamination entered into the picture, and tragically, fatal for Baby O and Little Girl B.


This information about the heparin catastrophe is provided by Attorney Gordon Johnson, in conjunction with the Nolan Law Group of Chicago, IL. The Johnson Law Office is affiliated with The Nolan Law Group on Heparin litigation. The Nolan Law Group is presently involved in the litigation on behalf of those affected by the distribution of contaminated heparin.

www.heparin-law.com


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Army creates team to review security at biolab

0 comments

Posted on 8th August 2008 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

We could have filled this and other blogs this week with all of the news and commentary about Anthrax. But what does that have to do with the Heparin Catastrophe. It just drives home even harder, the point we have been making on this blog since February that any firm in the pharmaceutical industry had to do the utmost to insure absolute purity of its drugs. Not only has there been on the front burner of the FDA agenda the risk of counterfeit drugs, but more seriously, the risk of intentional tampering, with malicious intent. Any company that makes drugs, must make them with such utmost security, that no opportunity to infect large numbers of people could exist.

That reality is even more important with a product like Heparin, that is designed to be taken, not only intravenously, but also given to our sickest individuals, those on kidney dialysis. Nothing less than an absolute guarantee of purity is required, and exporting the manufacture of raw materials and expecting a federal agency that has a 30 year backlog, is not the way to do it.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
http://heparin-law.com
http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com
http://vestibulardisorder.com
http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney
g@gordonjohnson.com
800-992-9447
©Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr. 2008

Date: 8/8/2008 7:53 PM

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Army has created a team of medical and other military experts to review security measures at the research laboratory where the scientist linked to the anthrax mailings worked.

Army Secretary Pete Geren has asked at least a dozen military and civilian officials to scrutinize safety procedures, quality controls and other policies and practices at the biodefense lab at Fort Detrick, Md., Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Friday.

To date, the Army has offered no explanation for how its biosecurity system, which is set up to catch mentally troubled workers, failed to flag scientist Bruce Ivins for years. Ivins, the microbiologist accused of sending anthrax-laced letters in 2001 that killed five people, committed suicide last week as the FBI began closing in on him.

Boyce said Friday that Geren met with military officials on Thursday night, then traveled to the high-security Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, known as USAMRIID, at Fort Detrick on Friday morning to talk with leaders there.

Boyce said the team, which is only now being formed, is not targeting individuals but instead will be reviewing documents, procedures and other safety measures to ensure security at the military biodefense lab. He added that as yet there are no deadlines for reports from the team.

The facility has come under intense public scrutiny as more details have spilled out about therapists’ concerns that in recent years Ivins had become paranoid, delusional and bent on violence.

Investigators said that between 2000 and 2006, Ivins had been prescribed antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs. By 2005, the government had matched anthrax in his lab to the strain that killed five people.

It wasn’t until November 2007, after the FBI raided his home, that Fort Detrick revoked Ivins laboratory access.

Army officials have declined to discuss any other efforts to either watch Ivins more closely or put other restriction on him prior to the November action.

Instead, they have stressed that safety procedures at the lab have included ongoing personnel evaluations, which rely largely on employee self-reporting medical or criminal problems and observations by other workers and supervisors.

Boyce said the impending review will be headed by a two-star general, and will include representatives from the medical research command, the Army’s surgeon general, and Army operations.

While the lab has strict security measures meant to weed out troubled scientists, there are lingering questions about why it took so long for supervisors to restrict Ivins access to the deadly toxins.

Ivins’ attorney, Paul F. Kemp, says the government’s evidence was too weak to trigger any action.

But members of Congress have questioned whether adequate action was taken, and they have pledged to investigate the case and lab security as a whole.

Overall, there are nearly 1,400 biological defense labs, with an estimated 14,000 scientists working with the world’s deadliest pathogens.

In 2005, the Pentagon ordered new “biosurety” safeguards requiring workers such as Ivins to be “mentally alert, mentally and emotionally stable.” The program was meant to ferret out workers with mental problems and those who attempted or threatened suicide.

Colleagues have differed in their observations of Ivins, with some saying they never say signs of mental illness, and others describing him as a “manic basket case” or saying they’d seen him openly weeping at his desk.

Ivins himself wrote in a July 2000 e-mail that he might be suffering from a paranoid disorder.

“I get incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times, and there’s nothing I can do until they go away, either by themselves or with drugs,” he wrote that August, in an e-mail included in government documents released Wednesday.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney

Heparin Disaster -FDA Inspections Weren’t Sufficient to Rely on Safety of Drug

0 comments

Posted on 17th July 2008 by gjohnson in Uncategorized

, , , ,

One of the lingering excuses for the Heparin Disaster is that it was the FDA’s responsibility, not the manufacturers, to make sure that Heparin was safe. That is like Wesley Snipes blaming overworked auditors for his tax fraud.

The risk factors of counterfeit drugs are known not only by drug companies like Baxter and SPL, but by the public at large. Every time we struggle to open a sealed package of anything we are reminded of why these seals are on these products: to avoid tampering. The risk of tampering and counterfeit are not something that can be transferred to an imperfect government auditing system, especially in light of what insiders have been saying for years about the thoroughness of FDA inspections.

In previous blogs, we have discussed the testimony before Congress: “Weaknesses Place Americans at Risk” Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held April 22, 2008. Click here for those hearings:http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-oi-hrg.042208.DrugInspection.shtml

During such hearings, Benjamin England, a former FDA inspector testified as to how inadequate the current FDA was to keep up with the problem of inspections.

I am founder and owner of an FDA consulting practice, FDA Imports.com, Inc., and a practicing attorney representing foreign and domestic food, drug, medical device and cosmetic companies in matters involving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I am a 17-year veteran of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). From 1986 to 2003 I held the positions of Regulatory Microbiologist in FDA’s Baltimore Microbiology Laboratory, Consumer Safety Officer and Compliance Officer in FDA’s Baltimore District Office, Special Agent with FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations in the Miami Field Office, Compliance Officer in FDA’s Miami Resident Post, and Regulatory Counsel to FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs (or ACRA) in Headquarters. I resigned my most recent FDA position as Regulatory Counsel to the ACRA in July 2003 — a position I held in FDA for over three years as a Title 42 appointee.


In his testimony, England stated:

Today we are confronted with serious adverse events involving a widely used drug product that appears to have been made using substituted active ingredients at a foreign facility that was never inspected by FDA – because of some human error in deciding whether an inspection had already been conducted or should be conducted. I believe that we are truly on the brink of a series of these events and that waiting for FDA to take some action that actually mitigates risk or encouraging the agency to act unilaterally will be an exercise in futility. As I said in the press and to your staff, Mr. Chairman, this recent case appears to be the close cousin of the same conduct discovered nearly two decades ago. At that time, it was through intensive and smart facility inspections and by the efforts of forward thinking forensic scientists and investigators the activity was discovered. Moreover, the successfully prosecuted counterfeit bulk drug case was made possible only through the intellectual connections between certain domestic inspections at U.S. facilities by a keen FDA investigator who had previously conducted the foreign inspection of the bulk supplier, coupled with follow up inspections at the foreign supplier, which were themselves targeted with knowledge of where evidence of illegal conduct was likely to be found.

It is no different today – except that we now have available to us significantly improved technological solutions that may prove useful to more precisely and efficiently identify, target, and intercept safety risks prior to their realization in the market place.
In our next blog, we will discuss England’s perspective on the FDA’s failures to use those technological advances to prevent tampering and contaminants in imported drugs.


Attorney Gordon Johnson
Chair Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group, American Association of Justice
g@gordonjohnson.com :: 800-992-9447 :: Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr.

http://subtlebraininjury.com :: http://brainanatomyguide.com :: http://car-accident-rain.com :: http://tbilaw.com
http://waiting.com :: http://vestibulardisorder.com :: http://youtube.com/profile?user=braininjuryattorney