When Philip Yeatts was born in Brownfield, Texas, in September 1962, he had no right leg. His right arm ended in a stump above his elbow, and he had a cleft palate and deformed tongue. Annette Manning, born in Green Bay in 1960, had only buds of fingers and an arm that ended in a stump — just like Mary Hurson, born the same year in New York City, and Tammy Jackson, a 1962 baby in Ranger, Texas. In a heartbreaking new complaint against GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Aventor, and Grunenthal, these four plaintiffs, along with eight others (in three parts here, here, and here) claim that their birth defects resulted from their mothers’ use of the now-notorious anti-nausea drug Thalidomide — and that the drug companies engaged in a 50-year scheme to cover up how widely Thalidomide was prescribed in the U.S., and how varied were the birth defects that could result from the drug.
“The question is going to be, ‘Why now?’” said Steve Berman of Hagens Berman. “The answer is that medical science has advanced. We now understand the mechanism by which Thalidomide works. There’s been a complete change in the knowledge of how it caused birth defects.”
Thalidomide was widely prescribed as a treatment for morning sickness in Europe in the late 1950s and early 1960s, until evidence emerged that the drug resulted in grave birth defects. Some countries, including England and Germany, established compensation systems for Thalidomide victims. There was no such plan in the U.S., where drug companies said Thalidomide had only been prescribed in a very restricted controlled study. According to Berman, after the awful consequences of Thalidomide came to light in the 1960s, fewer than a dozen American families sued and reached settlement with the drug companies that made and marketed the drug.
Decades later, an Australian lawyer Berman knows was contacted by Australians who believed their birth defects were caused by Thalidomide — which has resurfaced as a potent treatment for a form of cancer. Berman’s friend, Peter Gordon, ultimately reached a settlement on behalf of Australian Thalidomide victims. News of that deal, Berman said, brought Gordon inquiries from Americans who suspected Thalidomide was responsible for their injuries. Gordon brought in Berman.
Berman’s better known as a securities and antitrust plaintiff’s lawyer, but he told me there was no chance he wouldn’t take this case once he heard victims’ stories. “It’s so compelling,” he said. “We all felt we had to do this.” Most of the clients Hagens Berman represents in the Thalidomide case, Berman said, “have been searching their whole adult lives to find out what caused this.”