Judge rejects drug company's motion in $99 million law suit

RENO " A judge has refused to grant a new trial or overturn a $99 million judgment against pharmaceutical giant Wyeth but agreed to consider whether the damages the jury awarded three Nevada women in October were excessive.

Washoe County District Court Judge Robert Perry set a hearing in Reno for Feb. 14 to hear arguments about the evidence used to support the compensatory damages and the "factual and legal basis" for the amount of punitive damages.

The three women claimed hormone replacement drugs distributed by Wyeth caused their breast cancer. The jury agreed and awarded:

" Pamela Forrester, 65, Yerington, $35 million in punitive damages and $12.5 million in compensatory damages.

" Jeraldine Scofield, 74, Fallon, $33 million in punitive and $10.5 million in compensatory damages.

" Arlene Rowatt, 67, Incline Village, $31 million in punitive and $12 million in compensatory damages.

"We think the money the jury awarded was appropriate given the circumstances ... for the medical damages and the trauma and fear associated with breast cancer Wyeth gave them," said Geoff White, one of the lawyers who represented the three women.

"The $99 million is less than one half of 1 percent of Wyeth Corporation's net worth and the only language these companies understand is money," he told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Heidi Hubbard, a Washington D.C.-based lawyer who helped represent Wyeth, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. She said after the ruling in October that the company intended to appeal.

The judgment remains the largest award to date against the Madison, N.J.-based company, which faces about 5,300 similar lawsuits across the country in state and federal courts.

All involve the drugs Premarin, an estrogen replacement, and Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin. The drugs are prescribed to women to ease symptoms of menopause.

Perry issued the ruling on Tuesday rejecting Wyeth's motion to grant a new trial based in part on faulty jury instructions. He also rejected the company's motion to overturn the jury's verdict.

"Each of defendant's arguments has been previously made and rejected by the court," Perry wrote. "The court finds that defendant raises no new contentions or otherwise persuasive arguments."

He said he would reserve ruling on the motion to reconsider whether the damages were excessive until after next week's hearing.