Kessler helps convict Pfizer of racketeering

Share this article:
Based in part on testimony from former FDA commissioner David Kessler, a Massachusetts federal jury has found Pfizer guilty of violating racketeering laws in marketing its epilepsy drug Neurontin. The jury said the company should pay $142.1 million in damages.

In the case, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals said Pfizer illegally promoted Neurontin for unapproved uses. A Kaiser attorney said the jury found that Pfizer engaged in a racketeering conspiracy for 10 years, a determination that he said should help in future Neurontin cases.

Kaiser claimed it was forced to pay $90 million more than it should have for Neurontin, believing that migraines and bipolar disorder were among conditions it could treat effectively.

Several jurors said they were influenced by Kessler's testimony on behalf of Kaiser along with testimony by Johns Hopkins epidemiologist Kay Dickerson. Dickerson's article casting doubt on Neurontin clinical studies appeared in 2009.
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

Next Article in Features

Email Newsletters


Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Features

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Click the above link to access the complete Digital Edition of the August 2014 issue of MM&M, with all text, charts and pictures.

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Agencies must generate emotional resonance with the target audience, not unlike Apple, Pepsi or Nike

Are discounts cutting out co-pays?

GSK's decision to cut Advair's price spurred some PBMs to put it back on formulary. Will drugmaker discounts diminish the need for loyalty programs? How can these programs stay relevant beyond giving co-pay assistance?