Delaware Supreme Court Rules Against Zantac Cancer Lawsuits
In a significant breaking news development, the Supreme Court of Delaware has ruled that almost 75,000 patients suing four major pharmaceutical companies cannot present the reports of several experts who claim that the stomach-burning drug Zentac caused cancer. The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Delaware sided with GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, excluding the testimony of 10 doctors and scientists.
Expert Testimony Rejected
Judge Abigail Legrow stated that the judge in the lower court had employed an overly indulgent legal standard, assuming the admissibility of the testimony without requiring the experts to use a “reliable scientific methodology.” According to Legrow, this oversight led to the inclusion of experts who could not adequately explain their methodologies.
Impact on Business and Litigation
The case has drawn close attention from entrepreneurial groups, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, which expressed concerns that an unfavorable outcome could damage Delaware’s reputation as a safe harbor for businesses and encourage mass offenses.
Background on Zentac
Zentac, approved by US authorities in 1983, became the best-selling drug in the world within five years. Several companies have produced the drug over time. The lawsuits against Zentac producers began to accumulate after the US Food and Drug Administration requested its withdrawal in April 2020 due to concerns that its active ingredient, Ranitidine, could degrade into NDMA, a carcinogenic agent.
Lawyers’ Response
Brent Wisner, a patient lawyer, stated that his clients will continue to pursue the case, citing solid scientific documentation that NDMA in Ranitidine causes cancer. Lawyers for the drug producers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Role of the Judge
Judge Vivian Medinilla of the Superior Court of Delaware had initially allowed the testimony of the 10 experts, deferring the evaluation of scientific arguments to the juries. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the judge had failed in her role as “guardian” of the testimony, ignoring significant methodological defects identified in previous cases.
Future Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of rigorous scientific methodology in expert testimony. This ruling could set a precedent for future cases involving expert testimony in litigation, particularly those involving complex scientific issues.
The Zentac 360 drug, now on the market, uses a different active ingredient and does not contain Ranitidine. Most US disputes on the drug have been resolved, but this case continues to evolve, with lasting implications for both patients and pharmaceutical companies.
For more updates on this developing story, stay tuned to archyde.com.
