Practice Areas & Industries: Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.P.

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Texas has historically been a hotbed for pharmaceutical and medical device litigation. Our experience includes a broad array of representation for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.

At the Courthouse

In the 1990s, our firm was Texas coordinating trial and appellate counsel for one of the target breast implant manufacturers faced with thousands of claims from women alleging many types of autoimmune disorders.

In 2000, our firm was selected as Texas coordinating trial and appellate counsel by the manufacturer of a Type-II diabetes medication which was withdrawn from the market. The withdrawal resulted in hundreds of lawsuits filed in Texas alleging liver related injuries.

Much of our defense work in such cases has been devoted to developing strategies to overcome causation - through the careful cross examination of plaintiff experts, and exposing them where possible to demonstrate absence of scientific reliability under Daubert and state law equivalents. This routinely involves the careful identification of experts in the medical community who understand the issues and the science, and can present logical arguments explaining the lack of proper scientific foundation for the opinions offered by the plaintiffs. Our long-standing relationships with local medical institutions provides us with a vast array of expertise and introductions to other institutions offering the talent and skill necessary to demonstrate the lack of foundation for causation opinions.

Related to pharmaceutical and medical device litigation is the crucial research and development investment, often involving new and evolving biotechnology issues. Our lawyers have been involved in a number of arbitrations and lawsuits involving licensing, development, and related intellectual property issues.

The Texas Legislature

Our firm was instrumental in securing the 2003 passage in Texas of a law creating a rebuttable presumption of the adequacy of FDA approved warnings on pharmaceuticals and medical devices - offering testimony and coordinating on language to be included in the legislation. We worked tirelessly to obtain the best possible language to persuade the Texas legislature that the FDA's determination of the adequacy of a device or pharmaceutical's warnings should be given great deference. The results of this new law, coupled with other reforms enacted in 2003, has been a dramatic reduction in the number of new filings of pharmaceutical and medical device personal injury cases in Texas.

The Appellate Courts

Our firm has handled a number of appeals for pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, we helped establish precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the one year outside time limitation for removing a pharmaceutical case to federal court could be equitably tolled where a plaintiff engages in trickery to hide facts from the defendant which, if known, would have enabled the defendant to remove the case within the one year time limit. See Tedford v. Warner-Lambert Co., 327 F.3d 423 (5th Cir.2003).

Selected Representations

• Represented Pfizer Inc. as lead counsel in securing a February 12, 2008 affirmance of a summary judgment against a plaintiff's claim that her brain tumor was caused by an oral polio vaccine allegedly manufactured by Pfizer. In Garcia v. Pfizer, No. 06-40703, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that (1) the plaintiff did not offer sufficient proof that Pfizer made the vaccine alleged to have caused the injury; (2) Pfizer and the other defendants offered sufficient proof to rebut any inference that Pfizer could be responsible for the plaintiff's injury; and (3) Texas law, applicable to the case, has not adopted any of the alternative liability theories the plaintiff sought to apply to the case.
• Represented the manufacturer of prescription erectile dysfunction medication in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged a vision related injury.
• Represented the manufacture of prescription hormone replacement therapy medication in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged blood clot and resulting pulmonary-related injury.
• Represented the manufacturer and tried to verdict cases involving alleged severe liver injuries resulting from a Type-II diabetes prescription drug.
• Represented the manufacturer of an arthritis prescription drug in a plaintiff claim for alleged severe kidney injury.
• Represented the manufactures of Sabin and Salk polio vaccines in suits where plaintiffs alleged brain tumors were caused by alleged contaminant in vaccines.
• Represented the manufacturer of breast implants in cases alleging sever auto-immune disorders.
• Represented the manufacturer of orthopedic devices alleged to be defective.
• Represented the manufacturer of Type-II diabetes prescription medication in an economic injury putative class action.
• Represented the manufacturer of over-the-counter medication indicated for ridding head lice infestations in a putative consumer class action.
• Represented a biotechnology company in arbitrations involving disputes over new drug development, licensing, and intellectual property ownership.