Court expert for the Los Angeles Unified School District argues that a girl with low IQ may suffer less after sex assault

As Reported on 89.3 KPCC Radio

A psychologist hired by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) testified last year that a 9-year-old girl's low IQ provided a "protective factor" that could reduce the amount of emotional stress she experienced from a sexual assault, according to court records examined by KPCC.

Dr. Stan Katz made the statements during the May 2013 trial over how much in damages the girl was entitled to after being repeatedly sexually assaulted by a boy at her school. The girl has an IQ between 64 and 70; the boy who assaulted her was not developmentally disabled, according to court transcripts.

The abuse happened at various spots around the school campus, according to David Ring, the girl's attorney. Her family sued LAUSD, arguing the girl needed financial compensation because she suffered significant trauma and would need long-term therapy.

"Protective factor"

At trial, Ring asked Katz what he meant when he had testified that the girl's mental disability "acts as a protective factor." According to the court transcript, Katz answered, "There's a relationship between intelligence and depression. What happens is the more you think about things, you can ruminate, you can focus on things, you can look at the complexities of the matter and become more depressed."

Following up, Ring asked, "So because she may be less intelligent than a general education student, she's going to suffer less depression because of it?" Katz replied, "Very possible, yes."

Katz didn't deny that the girl had suffered, and he said she would require therapy to deal with the trauma.

The assaults against the girl occurred in 2010, when she was 9 years old. Katz testified that when he interviewed the girl in April 2012, whatever emotional problems she may have had at the time were a result of not having her father in her life and her mental disability, not the molestation.

"I have handled hundreds of cases where the experts have given depositions, and I've never heard [the protective factor argument] in the way it was said" in this case, said Ring.

Two experts in the field reviewed Katz's testimony and said there is no science to support his assertion about the protective factor.

"I have never seen developmental disability in a child that age used as a protective factor with respect to how they handle trauma," said University of California San Francisco psychiatrist Dr. Lynn Ponton. "In fact," she added, "developmental disability quite often puts them at risk for this type of trauma."

Dr. Steven Berkowitz, an associate professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, agreed.

A mentally disabled person who has undergone a traumatic experience may have a "compromised" ability "to fully understand why something may have happened" or "the consequences for themselves and others," said Berkowitz, who is also director of the Perelman school's Penn Center for Youth and Family Trauma Response and Recovery. That person may also have difficulty with "decision making or problem solving around the use of coping strategies to assist them in dealing with the stress or trauma," he said.

Asked about Dr. Katz' protective factor argument on behalf of the school district, LAUSD Associate General Counsel Greg McNair said he hadn't read the trial transcripts, but added, "I don’t know anything about that. I would not agree with that. I think anyone who has been involved in a traumatic event would suffer tremendously."

Katz did not return repeated calls seeking his comment.

"The jury was offended"

The jury in the case awarded the girl $1.4 million in damages, far more than the $10,000-$12,500 LAUSD attorney Keith Wyatt argued she needed for therapy sessions.

"The jury was offended, they were disgusted and they thought it was unbelievable that an expert witness could come in and say something like that," Ring said, referring to post-trial conversations he had with jurors.

Members of the L.A. Unified Board of Education did not respond to requests for comment, although it's unclear how familiar they are with the details of the case. According to LAUSD counsel McNair, the board does get a brief, called a trial informative, at least thirty days before a trial, which describes the facts of the case and the positions of the district and plaintiffs, but daily briefings are unusual.

"It's a rare case when we would provide a daily update to the board on a case," said McNair. "I get daily updates on every trial that takes place," he said, adding that he's typically tracking about 100 lawsuits "more or less" at any one time.

Marci Hamilton, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, believes it's important that LAUSD keep its board well informed about ongoing litigation.

"What I wonder is whether or not the LAUSD actually knows what its experts and its lawyers are arguing, because this is beyond the pale for any school district that is supposed to be, under law, caring for children,"​ said Hamilton.

Even though Katz's comments on the protective factor were just a small part of his testimony in this case, Hamilton expressed concern that L.A. Unified might try to use the same argument in future lawsuits, a prospect she found "disturbing."

Katz has become something of a celebrity through his appearances on several reality TV shows, including "It's Complicated" with actress Denise Richards. But he said in court that most of his time is spent as an expert witness and mediator in child custody disputes. For the past ten years, he's worked on several cases, including some LAUSD child abuse cases, with Wyatt's firm of Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt.

Dr. Katz is consulting on another child abuse case involving a former teacher from Hamilton High school. That case is scheduled to go to trial in February and Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt has been retained to defend LAUSD, district officials said. Keith Wyatt will not be the lawyer from his firm trying the case because the district said he will no longer represent it in any lawsuits following remarks he made to KPCC about his handling of another sex abuse suit.

Psychiatric patient awarded $40,000 after sexual assault at Seven Oaks Hospital in Manitoba

From this report from CBC news

A former unit clerk at Seven Oaks Hospital has been ordered to pay a patient $40,000 in damages after an investigation found the clerk sexually interfered with her.

According to court documents, in December of 2010 the woman, who is now 42, had a panic attack and was admitted to the psychiatric ward at Seven Oaks. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was being treated for anxiety, depression and alcoholism.

Within days of being admitted, she loaned a DVD to a male unit clerk. The man returned the DVD to her with his number enclosed. She says he openly read her medical files and another patient told her she thought the clerk was flirting with her.

A few days later, the clerk smuggled a cell phone onto the ward for the woman. A statement filed by the woman claims he began texting her sexually provocative messages. He also told her that he loved her and would "always be there for her."

On one occasion he followed her into her room and they kissed. They also met in his vehicle parked outside the hospital for a rendezvous. She applied for a day pass and he drove her to a liquor store and a hotel. Once inside a rented room, they drank large amounts of alcohol and had sex. The next weekend she applied for another pass and they checked in to a CanadInns Hotel and drank large amounts of alcohol.

The following Monday, the patient checked herself out of hospital and the unit clerk stopped texting her and returning her calls. On December 24th, she received a phone call from the man's common-law wife asking her to stop contacting him. The woman says she didn't know the clerk had a partner.

As the woman's condition improved, she realized what had happened and believed her judgment was impaired and the clerk took advantage of her.

A provincial investigation report filed in November of 2011 found that the patient was vulnerable at the time of admission to the facility. It states: "There is evidence that the patient was subjected to sexual abuse by the respondent who was a staff member during her hospitalization and that this abuse caused the patient harm."

The investigation report directs Seven Oaks to "develop and implement an educational strategy for professional boundaries and include all direct care staff who work with psychiatric patients."

Since the incident the woman says she has had bouts of anxiety and depression, suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and had suicidal thoughts. She also says she is now afraid of being admitted to hospital.

Lawyers for the woman have entered into an agreement with Seven Oaks to discontinue the claim against the hospital citing the hospital had minimal liability.

The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA) and Seven Oaks Hospital "take the safety and security of its patients very seriously, and are aware of the case."

In a statement the WRHA said when the hospital was alerted by the patient, "Seven Oaks acted immediately by suspending the employee and notifying the Protection for Persons in Care Office (PPCO). Seven Oaks also conducted an investigation which resulted in the employee immediately being placed on leave as of February 16, 2011. As well, the hospital took steps to provide additional training and awareness to program staff about the importance and legal requirement to observe professional boundaries. This training is mandatory and provided annually."

Psychiatrist Howard Mahler Facing Rape Charges; He Also Saw Patients and Then Had Other Doctor Write The Prescriptions, according to DA

Just in time for Halloween we have this report from the Port Washington Patch

A Long Beach psychiatrist conspired with an ex-doctor from Sands Point to sell prescriptions for Adderall and Xanax, according to the Nassau County District Attorney’s office.

Howard Mahler, 62, of Long Beach, was charged with five counts of criminal sale of a prescription for a controlled substance and fourth-degree conspiracy. He faces a maximum of five to 15 years in prison if convicted, the DA said.

Mahler is accused of selling prescriptions for addictive drugs to patients of former psychiatrist Marshall Hubsher, 64, of Sands Point, the DA said.

Hubsher was charged with third-degree rape in 2012 for allegedly having sex with a patient, the DA said. Despite having his license revoked, Hubsher kept meeting with patients in exchange for cash, the DA said. Hubsher would reportedly meet with patients in office hallways before they would go in to meet with Mahler, who wrote prescriptions based on information given to Hubsher, officials said.

Hubsher is charged with five counts of unauthorized practice of a profession and fourth-degree conspiracy, the DA said. He faces up to four years in prison if convicted.

In one instance, an undercover detective posed as a patient and confessed to Hubsher that he wanted higher doses of Adderall so he could sell them and buy Oxycodone, the DA said.

Long Island division DEA officials arrested Hubsher and Mahler in Hubsher’s office Wednesday, officials said.

Both Mahler and Hubsher are due back in court Nov. 3. Hubsher will also return to court Dec. 1 on the previous rape charge.

Related: Sands Point Psychiatrist Faces Rape Charges

Vermont spent millions on suspect drug Zyprexa

From the Barre Montpelier Times Argus

As the lawsuits against Eli Lilly over its top-selling anti-schizophrenia drug Zyprexa began piling up in 2006, Vermont's state-run insurance program spent nearly $4 million on the drug, according to documents.

That amount may seem like a drop in the bucket when compared to Zyprexa's 2007 sales of $4.8 billion in the United States, but the payments through Vermont's Medicaid program came at a time when 10 states and upwards of 30,000 people were suing the company over the drug.

Launched in 1996, Zyprexa has become the top-selling medication for drug-maker Eli Lilly. But those sales are dropping as lawsuits and leaked corporate documents reveal a decade-long effort to downplay the side effects, including weight gain and an increased chance of diabetes, in the company's promotion of the drug.

Just this week the state of Alaska, population 670,000, settled its lawsuit against Eli Lilly for $15 million over what it claimed were increased Medicaid costs due to health problems associated with taking Zyprexa. That was the first state to settle with the company in the lawsuits.

Vermont is not one of the states now suing Eli Lilly. But on Thursday, the Vermont Association for Mental Health, a Montpelier-based advocacy organization, urged the state to pursue that legal option. Executive Director Ken Libertoff said this case was a "sad commentary" on the influence of the pharmaceutical industry.

"No one doubts that psychotropic medications can be an important part of treatment, but as this case will show, improper marketing, concealment of important health information and huge financial payments have polluted the environment," Libertoff said.

While it may not be suing Eli Lilly, Vermont is investigating how the company marketed its drug to doctors and others here, according to Julie Brill, Vermont's assistant attorney general. She said the state subpoenaed marketing materials and internal company documents detailing its marketing plan in January 2007.

Brill said that inquiry is still on-going and she was mum on further details. She said she did not know when more informa-tion on their investigation could be made available to the public.

"We do have an ongoing consumer protection investigation," she said.

The $3.96 million spent on Zyprexa by Vermont in 2006 appears to be an unusually high number – and impacted because that financial year was the start of the new federal Medicare Part D program that subsidized the cost of prescription drugs, according to Ann Rugg, the deputy director of the Office of Vermont Health Access, which oversees the publicly-funded insurance programs.

The spending has since dropped, although it is still in the millions. In 2007, $1.5 million was paid by the state and during the first three quarters of the current financial year, the state is on track to pay about $1 million.

Michael Hartman, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Mental Health, said Thursday that all medications have potential side effects, but the situation with Zyprexa is especially troubling due to the allegation that the company went out of its way to downplay its health consequences.

He faulted the Food and Drug Administration for its lax authority over the testing of new drugs, saying the federal organization needs to rely more on independent tests as opposed to the ones submitted by the drug-makers.

"A patient needs to understand and have all the information about the medication to make an informed decision," he said.

Hartman said Zyprexa was likely marketed in Vermont in the same way that the drug was marketed in other states. He said there is an "awful lot of trust or acceptance that the information provided" to mental health professionals in the field is accurate.

"If we can find that there is reason to believe that this wasn't done properly … show a purposeful pattern of deceiving people, that is a door that could be explored," Hartman said when asked if Vermont should join other states in the Zyprexa lawsuits. More than 23 million people have taken Zyprexa since it hit the market as a medication to soothe hallucinations and delusions. But company documents leaked to the New York Times show that the company encouraged doctors to prescribe the drug "off-label," meaning for uses not approved by the FDA.

Federal law prohibits such off-label marketing, although doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs more freely.

Tens of thousands of lawsuits have also been filed over the side effects of the drug, which include massive weight gain and blood sugar boosts – all known risk factors for diabetes. So far, the company has paid out $1.2 billion to settle many of the lawsuits.

So far, Eli Lilly has maintained its innocence. The company did not return a phone call for comment Thursday, but an executive told the New York Times this week that "a settlement helps us get back to what we want to focus on as a company …"

Zyprexa has been an effective medication for some patients, but its use has dropped in recent years once reports of the side effects surfaced, according to Jonathan Wecker, a Montpelier psychiatrist.

"I don't remember any talk of these side effects when the drug first came out," he said. "And clearly, the association we've seen since to diabetes has caused this drug to drop off a bit."

The ironic twist to the surge and fall of Zyprexa is that a government-funded study has shown that the older antipsychotic medications can be just as effective as the newer, more expensive medications, according to Adrianne Fugh-Berman, an associate professor in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown University School of Medicine.

"The pharmaceutical companies have really gone out of their way to cast doubt on this government-funded trial in order to decrease its credibility in physicians' minds," said Fugh-Berman, who is also the director of PharmedOut, an independent, physician-led organization that provides information on pharmaceutical drugs.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is invalid as forensic lie detector, courts rule

The original Wall Street Journal article on all this can be seen via the WSJ Blog here (here's a snippet)

Today, a WSJ front-pager looks at a psychology test, used increasingly by defendants in personal injury lawsuits, called the Fake Bad Scale. In hundreds of cases, says the story, expert witnesses have testified that the test provided evidence that plaintiffs were lying about their injuries. The test gained credibility recently after being endorsed by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

But now psychologists and plaintiffs’ lawyers claim that the Fake Bad Scale identifies too many real victims as fakers, known as malingerers, people who exaggerate their symptons to win judgments in court. “Virtually everyone is a malingerer according to this scale,” says a leading critic, James Butcher, a retired University of Minnesota psychologist who has published research faulting the Fake Bad Scale. “This is great for insurance companies, but not great for people.”

We now have an extended article on this mess. As found and reposted from Karen Franklin's Forensic Psychology Blog, linked from the Sentencing Law & Policy blog, with a tip of the hat to one of our readers

Psychology's most widely used personality test, the MMPI, jumped into the national spotlight today in a fascinating David-and-Goliath controversy pitting corporate interests such as Halliburton against the proverbial little guy.

At issue is the "Fake Bad" scale that was incorporated into the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory last year for use in personal injury litigation. A front-page critique in today's Wall Street Journal includes publication of the items on the contested scale, a test security breach that will no doubt have the publisher seeing red.

Although a majority of forensic neuropsychologists said in a recent survey that they use the scale, critics say it brands too many people - especially women - as liars. Research finding an unacceptably large false-positive rate includes a large-scale study by MMPI expert James Butcher, who found that the scale classified high percentages of bonafide psychiatric inpatients as fakers.

One possible reason for this is that the scale includes many items that people with true pain or trauma-induced disorders might endorse, such as "My sleep is fitful and disturbed" and "I have nightmares every few nights." Yet hearing the term "Fake Bad" will likely make a prejudicial impact on jurors even if they hear from opposing experts who say a plaintiff is not faking.

The controversy came to a head last year in two Florida courtrooms, where judges barred use of the scale after special hearings on its scientific validity. In a case being brought against a petroleum company, a judge ruled that there was "no hard medical science to support the use of this scale to predict truthfulness.” Other recent cases in which the scale has been contested include one against Halliburton brought by a former truck driver in Iraq.

The 43-item scale was developed by psychologist Paul Lees-Haley, who works mainly for defendants in personal injury cases and charges $600 an hour for his depositions and court appearances, according to the Journal article. In 1991, he paid to have an article supportive of the scale published in Psychological Reports, which the WSJ describes as "a small Montana-based medical journal."

The scale was not officially incorporated into the MMPI until last year, after a panel of experts convened by the University of Minnesota Press reported that it was supported by a "preponderance of the current literature." Critics maintain that the review process was biased: At least 10 of the 19 studies considered were done by Lees-Haley or other insurance defense psychologists, while 21 other studies – including Butcher's – were allegedly excluded from consideration.

Later last year, the American Psychological Association's committee on disabilities protested to the publisher that the scale had been added to the MMPI prematurely.

Lees-Haley, meanwhile, defends the scale as empirically validated and says criticism is being orchestrated by plaintiff's attorneys such as Dorothy Clay Sims, who has written guides on how to challenge the Fake Bad scale in court.

Even if the scale was valid before today, questions are certain to arise about the extent to which it will remain valid once litigants start studying for it by using today's publication of all 43 items along with the scoring key.

The lesson for forensic practitioners: Be aware of critical literature and controversy surrounding any test that you use in a forensic context, and be prepared to defend your use of the test in court.

The article, "Malingerer Test Roils Personal-Injury Law; 'Fake Bad Scale' Bars Real Victims, Its Critics Contend," which includes ample details on the controversy, is only available to Wall Street Journal subscribers, but you can try retrieving it with a Google news search using the term "MMPI Fake Bad." The University of Minnesota Press webpage on the contested scale is here, along with a list of research citations.

---

Here are citations to the major pro and con research articles:

"Meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale: Utility in forensic practice," Nelson, Nathaniel W., Sweet, Jerry J., & Demakis, George J., Clinical Neuropsychologist, Vol 20(1), Feb 2006, pp. 39-58 (pdf available here)

"The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale: Does this measure somatic malingering and feigned emotional distress?: Butcher, James N., Arbisi, Paul A., & Atlis, Mera M., Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Vol 18(5), Jul 2003, pp. 473-485. (pdf available here)

The original source of the scale is known, see this item:

Dr. Paul Lees-Haley, a psychologist, who makes his living primarily helping insurance companes in personal injury cases has designed a "Fake Bad Scale" psychological test to challenge personal injury claimants. An article in the March 5, 2008 Wall Street Journal describes how Dr. Lees-Haley developed the test and convinced the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, MMPI, to make the Fake Bad Scale an official subset of the MMPI. This Fake Bad Scale has been used by the KBR unit of Halliburton Inc. to deny disability claims of truck drivers who worked in Iraq by labeling them as malingerers.

However, the court in two Tampa, Florida auto personal injury cases has rightly excluded the Fake Bad Scale from the courtroom. The scientific basis of this test has not been properly demonstrated. Furthermore, it has long been the jury's job to evaluate the credibility of courtroom witnesses.

Using a psychological test such as the Fake Bad Scale as evidence in a trial invades the proper province and job of the jury to make that evaluation. The use of a lie detector test is not admissible in court for the same reasons.

In essence, Dr. Lees-Haley and the auto insurance companies are attempting to use this Fake Bad Scale as a lie detector test. Our jury system does and should provide justice though jury trials on all the issues, not through a machine or a test designed by an insurance company consultant.

Whistle Blowing in Australia - a Report from the Australia

We have recently received two documents from someone who appears to be Dr Yolande Lucire, who offers them as evidence that they are a whistle blower in Australia. They point to a pattern of corruption in the Australian Medical System the should be troubling to anyone. (We also point people to her site, as there are a number of interesting documents pointing out the hazards os SSRIs)

The first is a text of a troubling letter sent to Sun Herald on 28 Feb 2008. Here is the text of that letter, as I received it

Sir

The Professional Standards Committee (PSC) judgement, said that I needed to consult a senior colleague about deficiencies in my knowledge and communication. It concerned 3 patients out of 30 whose pharmacological treatment I had reported to the area health service and to the NSW Medical Board.

Before I saw them, all had displayed suicidal, homicidal, psychotic, violent or otherwise peculiar behaviours both caused and aggravated by high doses of 'SSRI' antidepressants to which had been added to other medicines which have been well documented interactions with them. Two were on Aropax which its maker, GSK had admitted, a fortnight ago, had increased suicides eightfold in clinical trials over placebo, but they had not disclosed this catastrophic side effect when Aropax was licensed as an 'antidepressant.' The third was on three drugs together with Luvox, a drug so interactive that it had been withdrawn from use in the United States.

The NSW Medical Board had declined to investigate my 30 complaints as prescribing issues. The HCCC used the services of a psychiatrist who was a 'peer' of the prescribers, who found nothing unusual in a series that soon involved four deaths and several more suicides and deaths which were not investigated either and a dozen near lethal suicide attempts and a variety of bizarre behaviours on these drugs. On legal advice, I made the reports prospectively, at a rate of two or so each week, as the doctors of concern continued in their prescribing after I had issued formal warnings supported by documentation to the Superintendent. The first deaths occurred very soon after the prescriber had been ‘exonerated’ by the HCCC for the first group of suicide attempts but the reports of the deaths were ‘lost’ for two years at the HCCC, then not investigated either, or not by relevant experts. .

These same ‘side effects’ have been reported tens or possibly, hundreds of thousands of times to the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) which issued Public Health Advisory in March 2004 and many before and since about worsening depression, suicidality, mania, akathisia, violence, insomnia, agitation, panic and anxiety caused by antidepressants. The Area Health Service, the PSC and the various ‘peers’ all failed to acknowledge the significance and legal importance of such high level advisories.

The PSC was not concerned that one of the three went on to stab a man and attempt suicide when he was given even more of the very drugs that I had warned (in writing) had already caused a ‘serotonergic reaction.’ Nor were they concerned that he had been abandoned by his treaters and re-diagnosed with an ‘antisocial personality disorder’ after he had done that.

That complaint was bizarre in that it was I, who had tried to prevent such a catastrophe by warning in writing, was alleged to be somehow responsible for causing this behaviour. The PSC was advised that I was unethical for making so many unjustified reports and for informing a patient’s mother about her son’s problems, although that information led to his full recovery.

Since 1997, that Area Health Service had increased its mental health beds from 30 to 42 and it was promised another 12 in 2006, after yet another inpatient suicide.

Hospitalised suicide attempts have trebled from 55 to 155/100,000. Suicides under mental health care in NSW (a relatively new phenomenon) run at between 100 and 150 annually and violence and homicides by mental health patients have hugely increased. 194 such patients were admitted to one ward during 2003-4, but it took a psychiatrist with 42 years of experience to see that this was a population which did not exist before this new batch of serotonin altering psychiatric drugs came into use, antidepressants and ‘atypical’ antipsychotics which have the same side effects at double the rate of antidepressants.

We have a Crisis in Mental Health. The Department of Health has installed nearly 500 more mental health beds and there are 1100 more on the drawing boards.

Finding and relieving such patients has been a Mental Health priority in the UK for three years now and in Canada where I had lectured on this problem.

In the USA, 40 State Attorneys are suing the makers of these drugs for criminal fraud, to get funds to compensate patients who had suffered and to recoup costs so generated, and settlements run in billions of dollars. Doctors, when sued, say they were not properly warned, and thus pass the responsibility successfully onto the drug companies.

The Department of Health has been told many times that the causes of this crisis are: new drugs which have suicide attempts, homicidal thinking and hallucinations among their listed side effects. It prefers to kill the messenger by repeated acts of defamation.

The Health Care Complaints Commission is the only body available to look at treatment complaints. It had been was set up in the wake of the Chelmsford Royal Commission to ensure that malpractice of such magnitude could not happen again. Thirty years ago, 26 deaths and suicides were occasioned by pharmacological treatment delivered by the late Dr Harry Bailey over some twenty years.

Today's drugs are far more dangerous inductive of suicide. They are given to a million Australians, 14% of whom do not have the metabolism to deal with them at all. Huge numbers who are at risk of these catastrophic side effects which, more often than not, are taken for schizophrenia, bipolar illness or borderline personality disorder and the patient is given more drugs. Persons seeking mental health care doubled in the decade since Prozac was released in 1992 to 2003 and the numbers are still increasing, as the number of people whose SSRI side effects were taken for schizophrenia, etc mounts up.

I reported this series of suicides deaths and suicide attempts over 6 months, after which I was advised by lawyers to stop reporting because the Medial Board has decided to pursue me. The series was far worse than anything that Dr. Bailey and Chelmsford produced in that short period time and every complaint was dismissed in a cavalier fashion. One senior administrator apologised to me for not dealing with my reports. He explained that it was ‘The System.’

Read this doc on Scribd: Dr Yolande Lucire letter to Sun Herald (28-02-08)

We also have a copy of an interesting report. This report concerns how the Greater Southern Area Health Service (at the time the Greater Murray Area Health Service) has dealt with nearly 40 reports of suicides, dangerous suicide attempts, a homicide, a serotonin syndrome death and many episodes of violence and psychosis due to how certain drugs were prescribed and co-prescribed by certain practitioners. These reports were made initially in 2002 but mostly from September 2004 to April 2005 and again from September 2005 to December 2006. The report notes this as a pattern of cover-up of repeated acts, which caused serious adverse events including deaths.

Read this doc on Scribd: Review Of Inquiry Into Complaints Handling In NSW Health

Maryland psychiatrist Anil Sanghera surrendered her license to practice

Maryland psychiatrist Anil Sanghera surrendered her license to practice medicine in November 2007. Sanghera, a member of the Maryland Board of Physicians, consultant to the organization Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD) and the Georgetown University Center for Personal Development, was found guilty by the Board of immoral or unprofessional conduct, among other charges.

Among specific violations cited in the Board's documents was that Dr. Sanghera prescribed to family, friends and one employee without conducting physical examinations, evaluations or follow up care and did not maintain any medical records for some of these individuals. She specialized in the treatment of adult ADD.

Here are some of the documents we have received in this matter.

First we have the complaint that was filed in 2005

Read this doc on Scribd: Anil Sanghera Medical Board Charges 15 September 2008

Then we have the etter from November 2007 where the psychiatrist surrenders their license in order to avoid criminal prosecution by the state of Maryland.

Read this doc on Scribd: Anil Sanghera MD psychiatric board order 11-28-07

Is the U.S. Supreme Court Poised to Strip Consumers of Right to Sue over Deadly Pharmaceuticals?

As reported here, regarding the case Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent:

In arguments and discussion for Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent heard today, Justices are proposing that consumers should not be able to sue pharmaceutical companies for damages from side effects because some people might be helped by those same drugs. Forget all the technical legalities -- this argument is absurd from the outset. Here's why:

If Ford makes a defective car with a poorly-designed gasoline tank that explodes and kills someone, that person's family has a right to sue Ford, correct? But the U.S. Supreme Court is now effectively arguing that Ford should be granted immunity to all lawsuits because its cars provide benefits to other drivers.

In other words, the fact that Ford cars don't kill some consumers somehow makes up for the ones killed by those defective cars. (In this case, Ford is just an example. There is no pending legislation against Ford that involves the U.S. Supreme Court.)

That argument is absurd. If put in place, it would mean that individuals no longer have the right to sue companies for defective products, and the very definition of "harm" is no longer measured on an individual basis but rather by some sort of yet-unstated collective scorekeeping that says no company can be sued if its products provide benefits to somebody.

Of course, this is all being selectively applied only to the pharmaceutical industry at the moment, but if this line of thinking is allowed to continue, it could very quickly lead to blanket immunity for virtually all corporations against any consumer lawsuits. After all, the argument being made to protect Big Pharma is that even though drugs kill lots of people, the fact that they help some people who aren't killed outweighs the liability from the dead people. Should this also apply to automobiles? Fireworks? Roller coasters? At what point does the U.S. Supreme Court think corporations should actually be held liable for the harm caused by their products?

Irish Mental health tribunals have cost over €10 million to date

An interesting story, but what is utterly missed is the point that this is the cost in trying to establish at least some justice in the Irish system of involuntary commitment to mental hospitals. The tone is slightly weird, like this is some unwanted expense. From the Irish Medical News

Over €10 million has been spent on mental health tribunals since they were first established in 2006, it has emerged.

In response to a recent Parliamentary Question, Minister for State at the Department of Health and Children, Dr Jimmy Devins stated that €1,001,174 was spent in 2006 and €9,008,051 was spent in 2007 on tribunals.

The Mental Health Comm­ission did not give a further breakdown of the figures when requested by IMN.

A total of 2,423 tribunals were held during this period, meaning that the average cost of each tribunal is approximately €4,130.

The figures do not include a number of outstanding attendance fees, which have yet to be submitted by mental health tribunal panel members to the Mental Health Commission or the overheads associated with the administration of the mental health tribunals by the Commission, according to Minister Devins. The costs of the tribunals are met from the budget of the Mental Health Commission.

Consultant psychiatrist Prof Patricia Casey has branded the figures as “extraordinary”.

She told IMN that it was of the utmost importance that the Mental Health Commission provide a detailed breakdown of the figures given the costs involved. In particular, Prof Casey said in the interests of transparency and accountability it should be reported how much is being spent on solicitors fees.

Out of the 2,248 hearings held in 2007, 256 cases were revoked at hearing.

Judge slams psychologist’s evidence for being out of touch with reality.

Another psychologist who seems to be in a world all their own. Report from South Africa.

A judge trashed the testimony of a psychologist during pre-sentencing evidence of a man convicted of murdering a former senior official in the Premier’s office.

Judge Yusuf Ebrahim lashed out at East London-based psychologist Luyanda Mapekula in the Bhisho High Court yesterday for failing to read his judgment.

Mapekula was testifying during mitigation of sentence of Bonisile Grey, convicted last year of the premeditated murder of Siphiwe Mgoduso. Mgoduso was stabbed at a family member’s funeral in Mdantsane in July 2005.

Ebrahim said he was trying to establish the actual status of Grey’s mental condition after Mapekula testified his “psychology” had diminished prior, during and after the incident. “All I have been asking since (Tuesday) is (whether) the accused is suffering from mental illness or defect,” said Ebrahim.

Mapekula replied that Grey was under severe stress and depressed because of the disintegration of his family. “It is my view that his psychological state was compromised ... there should have been intervention in the form of psychiatric evaluation to return him into a normal state.”


Ebrahim said he could not understand why Mapekula was giving the court such an assessment because it did not seem to link with Grey’s argument that he acted in self-defence.

“Did you read the court’s judgment? Because you are relying on the accused’s version, which by the way this court has rejected. I have difficulty with the way you are speculating about (his mental state). You are acting solely on what the accused has told you.

“You have not read the court judgment and what other witnesses have told the court about the events that happened on the day.”

Mapekula admitted to Ebrahim that she did not interview Qaga – whom Grey regards as his wife – because the psychologist thought she would be hostile.

Sentencing will resume today.

An Eli Lilly secret memo was accident sent to a NY Times reporter

As Reported on Portfolio.com

When the New York Times broke the story last week that Eli Lilly & Co. was in confidential settlement talks with the government, angry calls flew behind the scenes as the drug giant's executives accused federal officials of leaking the information.

As the company's lawyers began turning over rocks closer to home, however, they discovered what could be called A Nightmare on Email Street, a pharmaceutical consultant told Portfolio.com. One of its outside lawyers at Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton had mistakenly emailed confidential information on the talks to Times reporter Alex Berenson instead of Bradford Berenson, her co-counsel at Sidley Austin.

Oops. If and when it settles with the government on the allegations that it had improperly marketed its most profitable drug, Zyprexa, for schizophrenia, it would certainly want to announce the news on terms carefully negotiated in order to create the least possible damage.

No such luck this time.

Psychiatrist loses appeal over sex crimes

A report from the Washington Poston the final failed appeal of a psychiatrist caught doing the wrong thing. Part of a much larger article.

The hearing was entering its 10th hour Thursday night when Arlington County psychiatrist Martin H. Stein learned that his 40-year career as a practicing physician was effectively over.

The Virginia Board of Medicine denied Stein's petition to reinstate the license he surrendered six years ago for his treatment of 10 patients, among them a 4-year-old whose legs he bound with duct tape.

The three-member panel found that Stein had harmed 17 other patients by over-prescribing sometimes dangerous combinations of drugs, diagnosing nonexistent conditions and engaging in unethical behavior with female patients.

Stein, 67, who declared personal bankruptcy five years ago and has been sued more than 15 times since 1995, may reapply or appeal. But both are expensive, time-consuming processes with virtually no chance of success.

Links to earlier Stories

• From the Archives: Va. Doctor's Misconduct Left Trail of Broken Lives
• From the Archives: A Broken Marriage And a 'Life Destroyed'

Psychiatrist secretly planned committing Spears to Hospital.

Britney Spears’ psychiatrist has been secretly planning to have the popwreck admitted to the psychiatric unit of UCLA Medical Center for quite some time, according to a Los Angeles Times report. The L.A Times reports that Britney’s admittance was actually a carefully planned event that had been orchestrated over time.

Authorities said the welfare hold was prompted by a telephone call they received from Spears' psychiatrist. It was unclear exactly when they had received the call, but it was apparent that the operation had been carefully planned over a period of time. Unlike the first welfare hold — in which Spears' ambulance was closely pursued by a throng of photographers — vehicles today were blocked from following the same route. The motorcade that whisked Spears to the hospital also showed a large investment in resources. The line of emergency vehicles stretched longer than a football field.

Spears earns an estimated $737,000 a month, or about $9 million a year, and has already built up a fortune estimated at $125 million, according to recent court documents in her custody battle with Kevin Federline. So there is first a question of:

Who controls her money if she is in the funny house? Not that anyone was ever motivated by money in Hollywood. No, they are all pure as the driven snow.

The second question is more general about the overall safety of Britney Spears. Hollywood has a long and sordid history on deaths and suicides while under the care of a psychiatrist or two. Anna Nicole Smith and Marylynne Monroe are merely the tip of the iceberg. [I'm working on a list to follow here shortly]

I merely do not want Spears to become another victim of psychiatrists, with us reading about a tragic death some months from now.

But I will not be entering her name in a dead pool either. Not yet.

---

UPDATE: In view of a comment we received on this story, this item is of interest.

Spears loses control of her finances under court order.

This is the first third pf the article, more at the link. It should be interesting to see how this plays out as the infighting over her money begins.

Britney Spears has lost control of her assets after a Los Angeles court commissioner placed her estate under temporary conservatorship.

This follows the actions of her desperate parents Jamie and Lynne Spears who went to court this morning to try regain control of their daughter's finances from her manager Sam Lufti.

Her father and a lawyer will now be in charge of the singer's millions and various properties until the next hearing on Febraury 4.

Commissioner Reva Goetz told a packed courtroom: "It is in the best interests of the conservatee to have conservatorship over her person."

Jamie will have the power to "restrict visitors," have around-the-clock security for Britney, and have access to all medical records, Goetz said.

Goetz said conservatorship over the estate was "necessary and appropriate." She gave approval for the singer's father to "take all actions to secure all liquid assets including credit cards."

Meanwhile, the fallen pop princess has been crying in her sleep for her British boyfriend as she struggles to adapt to life at a Los Angeles psychiatric hospital.

Britney was committed to a hospital in Los Angeles in the early hours of Tuesday morning following months of erratic behaviour that saw a court deny her access to her two sons.

Getting ready for a Revolution against Psychiatry

The Last Psychiatrist weblog has an interesting take on the recent study released questioning the effectiveness of antidepressants. Here is a large snippet from an article that deserves to be read in full:

An article like this has consequences, widespread social consequences. They are massive, you just don't see it.

Let's say antidepressants really don't work, and this could/should have been known. Have the last 10 years of psychiatry been a lie? It was all a shell game? If so, is anyone going to step up and apologize, take responsibility? "We were wrong, we've been pushing sham treatments-- sorry?" I don't want to hear, "we suspected this..." I want someone to stand up and announce, "you know, I've been prescribing these for years, and I now realize I was duped."

If it's true, then what were we doing to all those patients all those years?

These guys write this as if to say, "I told you so." It's all so clear to them. And to read the interviews, you'd think they were sipping on a Diet Coke-- poured into a glass, with a lime-- smugly announcing what they've known all along.

These guys are hailed as some sort of heroes, exposing the lies of Big Pharma. But they aren't, they are the worst possible self-promoters; they should be ashamed, they should be ashamed to show their faces in public, let alone practice medicine. They are worse than hypocrites, they are unconscious hypocrites.

Before you email me saying, "what-- you didn't want this published? You want them to simply pretend everything is ok, that the data for the meds really isn't weak? That data isn't really being suppressed?" let me state my point as clearly as possible:

THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE STUDY WAS PUBLISHED, THE PROBLEM IS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED 10 YEARS AGO.

It's the exact same data they had 10 years ago, the exact same data. This isn't a discovery, this isn't Woodward and Bernstein, this is a bunch of academics who are no longer on Pharma payrolls who have now decided that they have nothing further to gain from pushing antidepressants.

Now they can pretend to be on the side of science. We reviewed the data, and found some of it was not published.

You knew that already. You were the ones who didn't publish it-- it's your journal. Turner worked for 3 years as an NIH reviewer. He just notices this now?

Is no one wondering how it is that this study comes out now, when all antidepressants but two are generic?

As suspicious of Pharma as everyone is, no one seems to see that they are no longer getting Pharma money, they are now getting government money-- NIH-- so they're going to push the government line. No one finds it at all suspicious that the two biggest NIH studies in the past two years both found the generic to be the best?

You think that in 2000 those studies would have been published? But now-- 2007, 2008, if they'd found Cymbalta to be the best on the NIH's dime, you think that they'd get re-funded? What's the difference? Same authors, same studies, same data. All that's changed is the climate.

People want a direct financial link to show bias, not realizing that bias is much more prevalent and more powerful elsewhere.

And oh boy, there is going to be hell to pay.

The Strange Case of Marek Jantos

On November 18, we published a story from Adelaide Now regarding the case of Marek Jantos.

We have recently receive an email asking that the story be pulled, together with PDF copies of letters offered as evidence that details of the story were horrendously false with regard the matter of sexual misconduct. This was verified with a PDF copy of a letter from the Crown Solicitor who stated in part that "it was not the Registrar's case, nor a finding of the board, that Mr Jantos had been engaged, in any way, in sexual misconduct"

We note that the South Australian Psychological Board still lists Marek Jantos as having received disciplinary action. The reason stated on the government website is "Guilty of gross professional negligence, malpractice and misconduct." This makes us quite curious, and we feel it would be worthwhile to report on the actual reason for the Board's action. We imagine that there were several points of negotiation in order to get an order that Mr. Jantos could live with.

Seeing as they are in Australia, and we are in the USA, it might be difficult to serve us with a lawsuit. That said, and to be fair, we will work to replace any false information with true information regarding the cancellation of his registration. We will probably be contacting the newspaper and agencies involved in order to get more accurate data.

We supply a copy of the legal documents in question here:

262 freed from Irish psychiatric hospitals in the past year.

Around 20 Irish psychiatric patients are now being released every month after pleading their case before special tribunals. They were originally detained in mental hospitals against their will, and now have the option of independent tribunals. The mental health tribunals were set up over a year ago to allow patients who were the subject of involuntary detention orders to make their case to have it lifted. Previously, they had to rely on the sympathy of psychiatrists to deem if they were suitable to have the order lifted. Apparently, there was an obvious need for this sort of procedure in the name of ordinary justice and human rights. From the Irish Idependent

New figures from the Mental Health Commission show that 262 involuntary patients had the orders removed after appearing before the tribunals between December 2006 and November 2007. There have been a total of 2,227 hearings to date.

The tribunals are made up of doctors, members of the public and psychiatrists. The patient is able to appear in person to put their case forward.

There were 1,504 people detained against their will during that time -- down on the previous year following the introduction of more complex procedures for admission.

The detainee can opt for a Mental Health Commission-appointed solicitor and can appeal a tribunal ruling in the circuit court.

Since the beginning of the new legislation, 216 children have been detained in adult psychiatric facilities because of a lack of beds. Five of these children were detained against their will, and 12 were aged between 13 and 14.

However, psychiatrist Dr Patricia Casey said this situation was unacceptable.

"The HSE and also the Department of Finance need to be reminded that this situation is in breach of all international standards for the treatment of children with mental health issues. Children need facilities of their own," she said.

Former Santa Barbara County psychologist going to trial for sex crimes

From this report on KSBY channel 6 in California

The case against a former Santa Barbara County psychologist accused of sex crimes will go to trial.

Fernando Cordero faces 12 felony counts, including rape, as well as two other misdemeanor counts. There are seven alleged victims so far.

On Monday, Judge Zel Canter raised Cordero's bail to $1.1 million dollars.

Fernando Cordero has had a psychology license since 1990. He most recently worked at Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services. Now, he will stand trial to see if he abused that power.

Once believed to be a trusted doctor in the country, Fernando Cordero now will stand trial for the alleged rape, sodomy, and forced oral sex against former patients and even a former student.

An Allan Hancock College spokeswoman confirmed the former court appointed psychologist taught courses there. That included human sexuality, psychology, and race and ethnic relations, from Spring 2005 and Fall 2007.

This news, a shock to education student, Heather Brown.

"It's really creepy, to know that there's a teacher here that could possibly be doing that kind of stuff," Brown said. "It's kind of scary, but I'm glad I wasn't in his classes."

Deputies arrested Cordero at his Orcutt home back in November. With seven alleged victims so far, district attorney Ann Bramsen isn't ruling anything out.

"I think there's a potential for more victims, and I hope if there are, that they call the Sheriff's Department and come forward and report because it's very important that we stop him from any future victims," Bramsen said.

A sheriff's spokesman says many of his patients at Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Services were afraid of reporting Doctor Cordero for fear of not being believed, going to jail, or being deported.

"I hope that we have justice for the victims," Bramsen said.

That answer, soon to be left to a chosen jury.

Action News was unable to reach Cordero's attorney today. However, in previous interviews with Action News, Michael Scott says his client is a "well respected professional" and hopes that he does return to his practice.

Cordero remains in custody. He will appear in court next week on a bail hearing.

Do Antidepressants Make Murderers?

More lawyers are picking up on the fact of the liability issues involved with psychiatric drugs, especially when the side effects are so deadly. As seen on the Injury Board website.

Antidepressants are again under scrutiny.

According to a Yahoo! News Article dated December 18, 2007, the Supreme Court will hear a case regarding a teen, Christopher Pittman, sentenced to 30 years of prison for killing his grandparents and setting fire to their home at age 12.

His attorneys argue that the lengthy sentence violates the teen's Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. They claim that this is the only case in the country that gives such a harsh punishment to a minor.

This case is most noted for its association with the drug, Zoloft. In the original trial, Pittman's attorneys unsuccessfully tried to argue that the drug influenced their client.

According to an August 24, 2004 New York Times article written at the time the original case was pending, most medical experts do not believe in a link between antidepressants and acts of extreme violence and aggression.

Pittman claimed that something told him to commit the murders and that he was feeling isolated and aggravated a few days after starting the drug. Conversely, his doctor's notes about his behavior state that he was energetic and had no plans to harm himself.

The article also makes note of two other cases with similar fact patterns. In 2001, the drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil, paid $6.5 million to the relatives of a man in Wyoming who killed his wife, daughter, granddaughter and himself. This was the first time that a jury concluded a SSRI-type of antidepressant may lead users to suicide or homicidal behavior.

In April of 2004, a man in California was acquitted of attempted murder when it was found that his reaction to Zoloft made him unaccountable for his actions.

Zoloft is the most widely prescribed anti-depressant in the United Dates. Following some tests in 2004, the FDA put a "black box" warning on the drug, the strongest warning label that can be given to a drug, because of its association with an increased risk for suicide in children.

Court Mandated Mental Health Marketing For Children begins in Massachusetts

An effort to expand the psychiatric services market to children in Massachusetts is now underway. This despite the horrific death of young Rebbecca Riley due to overdoses of psychiatric drugs.

This is part of a court ordered remedy due to another psychiatric screwup. Unfortunately, the inappropriate answer ordered was more psychiatry. Inappropriate due to the woeful track record of psychiatry, especially as documented on this site.

As seen in this report.

As of Monday, annual checkups for the nearly half a million Massachusetts children on Medicaid will carry a new requirement: Doctors must offer simple questionnaires to detect warning signs of possible mental health problems, from autism in toddlers to depression in teens.

The checklists vary by age but ask questions about children's behavior - whether they are spending more time alone, seeming to have less fun, having trouble sleeping - that are designed to trigger discussion between parents and doctors. The conversations may or may not lead to a referral to a specialist.

Over the last several years, such questionnaires have increasingly become the standard of care in pediatric practices, but - spurred by legal action - Massachusetts is jumping ahead of other states by requiring the screens for all its young Medicaid recipients.

The new requirement represents "a huge step forward in a direction that is a national trend," said Dr. Robin Adair, a University of Massachusetts Medical School pediatrician and screening specialist.

Supporters say the screening can catch issues earlier, before they develop into hard-to-manage crises.

Skeptics warn that more children could end up on heavy-duty medications that they don't really need.

"In a more perfect world, screening for mental illness amongst children would clearly be a good idea," said Dr. John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and author of "Overdosed America."

"But let's look at the realities of the world we live in," he said. "What happens is that there's a very quick translation of mental health symptoms into drug treatment."

Others wonder how Massachusetts' overburdened mental health system for children will handle the new patients the screening is expected to identify.

Already, children's psychiatrists and psychologists are often overbooked. Children with serious mental illness sometimes end up stuck in psychiatric hospitals for lack of mental health services in the community.

If, as expected, the new screening requirement turns up more children with mental health problems, "I do think it creates a potential additional access problem," said Dr. David DeMaso, chief of psychiatry at Children's Hospital Boston.

The new screening requirement stems from a lawsuit, Rosie D. v. Romney, that accused the state of falling down on its obligations to poor, mentally ill children. The federal judge in the case ruled in January 2006 that Massachusetts must improve its care, and the new requirement is the first step in the state's court-ordered remedy plan.

Families may decline the screening if they wish. If a screen turns up signs of potential trouble, it is also up to the family whether to pursue further help and an official diagnosis.

The new requirement applies to the 460,000 children and young adults covered by MassHealth, the state Medicaid program, at annual checkups from birth to age 21.

The state's private insurers generally already reimburse children's doctors for such written screens, and Medicaid will now pay $9.73 to cover the testing.

[...]

As the routine screening gets underway, the state will be tracking how many children are tested and how many screens indicate a need for follow-up, said Emily Sherwood, who is overseeing the state's remedy for the Rosie D. case as director of its Children's Behavioral Health Interagency Initiatives. The state also plans to expand mental health services for children and make them more family friendly.

[...]

Zyprexa Suicide Victims’ Families Angry

From this report. If you do a blog search of "Eli Lilly and "Zyprexa" (their blockbuster) keywords you will find much negative blogging. Some of it is from claimants of their Zyprexa settlement who are still awaiting their promised resolution.

The family members of people who committed suicide after taking Zyprexa are understandably upset that they were not made aware of the risks associated with taking the drug. Patients as young as nine years old have reported having suicidal thoughts after taking Zyprexa and some adults have committed suicide.

Now, as more reports of people committing suicide while taking Zyprexa are made public, more family members realize that it may have been the drug, and not their loved one's disorder, that caused them to commit suicide.

One comment that is repeated over and over again by people complaining about the suicide risk in Zyprexa patients is that they were not suicidal before taking the drug. This is reported both by patients who took Zyprexa and the family members who have lost loved ones to suicide. Many people who took Zyprexa and complained about suicidal thoughts say they had never had such thoughts before taking the drug.

As one interview subject pointed out, before taking Zyprexa her life had been going fairly well. She was simply given Zyprexa to help treat bipolar disorder, but suicide had not been something that even entered her mind. However, within weeks of starting the drug, she became suicidal, coming to the point where every day was a struggle not to kill herself. She says that at the time she did not fully understand why she wanted to commit suicide, she just felt that she had to.

It was not until after her ordeal was over that she realized the drug she was taking could have caused her suicide attempts. Luckily, she survived her ordeal but countless others may not have. Their families could still be blaming their loved one's disorders for the suicide without realizing that Zyprexa could have led to their suicide. In fact, the rate of completed suicides linked to Zyprexa is higher than the rate associated with any other atypical antipsychotic, the class of drug that Zyprexa belongs to.

Some patients taking Zyprexa report that they have suicidal thoughts continuously and wake up trying to figure out how to commit suicide. Many have more than one suicide attempt and because their doctors do not realize that the suicide attempt is related to Zyprexa, the patients are given either an increased dosage of Zyprexa or a deadly drug combination that also increases their suicidal ideation.

It is a deadly cycle that rarely ends well for the patient. Those who complain about suicidal thoughts are often not taken seriously because, as patients diagnosed with mental disorders, their opinion is neither credible nor important. Unfortunately, because the medical and pharmaceutical communities are not listening to their concerns, patients are dying and their suicide is being blamed on their mental condition rather than on the drug they were taking.

It is not okay to dismiss someone's death simply because they had bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Simply assuming that they committed suicide because of their disorder allows pharmaceutical companies to continue marketing their drugs as safe when they may not be. If Zyprexa is responsible for the death of loved ones, then family members have a right to know. Furthermore, future patients have a right to be properly informed of all risks associated with Zyprexa before they decide whether or not to take that particular drug.

If you have or a loved on has taken Zyprexa tried to commit suicide, please contact a lawyer who works with this sort of lawsuit, who can review your case at no cost or obligation.