For anyone who watched the television show “Law and Order,” we all know that whatever the case, all the details were always wrapped up in under an hour.
Prosecution. Check. Defense. Check.
Witness for the prosecution. Check. Witness for the defense. Check. EXPERT witness for the prosecution… Like I said, they whizzed everyone through the process of the law in no time flat. But what about in real life?
In real life, cases can go on for literally years. One side stalls, witnesses disappear, lawyers want more money (of which corporations usually have boatloads to spare), and finally the little guy/gal has their moment in front of the judge.
Is justice about to be served? Not necessarily.
In a recent real-life trial, pharma giant Pfizer was granted a summary judgment because the prosecution did not produce expert witness testimony in the case of a Louisiana man, who had taken a Pfizer drug for an “off-label” use and experienced terrible side effects.
Off-label is a term that means taking or prescribing a drug for a disease or condition that it wasn’t approved for by the FDA.
In this case, the man suffered from complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and was prescribed the medication for nerve pain.
The devil is always in the details. The drug in question was approved only to treat epilepsy at the time.
Because the litigant only provided personal observations, the judge ruled that Pfizer could not be held liable for the side effects the litigant experienced.
So, POOF. Pfizer was off the hook after a 10-year journey through the legal system. The moral of this story is life does not always imitate art. And while it’s easy to arm-chair quarterback any given situation, I can’t help but wonder if the case would have turned out differently had the litigant produced an expert witness.
