The Second Circuit evidently has a higher opinion of Judge Weinstein’s Zyprexa learned intermediary rulings than it did of his decision to certify a class action in that litigation.  Up on the Second Circuit’s website this morning are eight summary affirmances of decisions dismissing individual Zyprexa claims.  Seven are on the ground that, for one reason or another, the plaintiff’s injury wasn’t caused by any allegedly inadequate label information.  These are:

(1) Singer – Pennsylvania law – inability to distinguish between the causal contribution of three prescribed drugs with similar risks to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
(2) Neal – California law – no different warning would have changed the prescribing decision.
(3) Misouria – California law – the prescribers already knew of the risks and continued to prescribe after an “adequate” warning was available.
(4) King-Washington – Arizona/Michigan law – plaintiff had diabetes before ever being prescribed Zyprexa.
(5) Head – Arizona law – Zyprexa was the only drug that controlled the plaintiff’s condition, and the doctors prescribed with knowledge of the risk.
(6) Guillen – California law – plaintiff had already suffered her injuries before ever being prescribed Zyprexa, and the doctors prescribed with knowledge of the risk.
(7) Gove – Arizona law – prescribers were aware of the risk and testified that an additional warning would not have made any difference.

The eighth decision – Belcher – affirms a statute of limitations dismissal under California law.

Tip of the hat to Eric Rothschild at Pepper Hamilton for letting us know about these wins.  Keep ’em coming.