REJECT the Seroquel Settlement Offer - Plaintiff Law Firms - sleazy backroom deals and the marketing of a bad settlement to those injured by Seroquel

REJECT the Seroquel Settlement Offer - Plaintiff Law Firms - sleazy backroom deals and the marketing of a bad settlement to those injured by Seroquel

It's no mistake that the plaintiff law firms are marketing this offer for AstraZeneca (it's in their own $$ Interest, Not the injured parties best interest). This is all part of those sleazy secret back room deals that they won't talk to their clients about. 

In Fact these plaintiff law firms appear to have laid down groveling for mercy like the submissive bitches gutless thieves they are, before pure evil AstraZeneca and their billion dollar demon legal team. 

This is not what injured parties sought or signed onto when they went searching for justice related to the horrendous crimes AstraZeneca perpetrated against them. Read between the lines & what the following statements by one of the plaintiff laws firms in this litigation is really saying. 

There is NO JUSTICE what so ever in this settlement offer.  This is only another sweet heart deal for AstraZeneca and Plaintiff Law Firms...No admission of wrong doing, No fair or adequate compensation to victims, No trial, No jury....No verdict...NO JUSTICE....


From Howard Nations Law Firm ,One of the many Plaintiff law firms involved in the Seroquel tort litigation.

Frequently asked Question regarding Seroquel Litigation Settlement:

-----

1) After I sign and return the documents, when will I receive my funds?
AstraZeneca will not allow any claimant in this settlement to receive money until almost all of the claimants return their signed packet. The sooner all documents are signed and returned to us, the sooner you will be paid. AstraZeneca estimates no claimant shall receive their settlement funds before October 1, 2011.

2) What happens if I do not sign and return the settlement documents?

If you do not sign and return the documents, you will not be included in this settlement and you will not receive any money from this settlement. Please review the documents in your settlement packet regarding your option to decline this settlement. It is our opinion that this is the best opportunity for you to receive any compensation for your claims in the foreseeable future. 


3) How will the funds be sent to me?
When AstraZeneca has approved enough settlement packets, you will be issued a check. Final checks will be issued after all claimants have submitted their forms, liens have been cleared and final expenses have been determined. If you have special instructions for your payment (such as a Special Needs Trust), you should let us know by including that information on a separate sheet of paper and returning it with your settlement documents. If you do not have a bank account, you should open one now to expedite the safe receipt of your funds.


4) How was my settlement amount calculated?
The Seroquel claims have been settled based on AstraZeneca’s costs of continuing to defend these cases rather than the nature and extent of claimants’ injuries. There is no proper legal basis to offer any claimant more or less than another claimant. All claimants are being offered the same amount. After we receive your signed settlement documents, control of your file goes to an Independent Settlement Administrator for deduction of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and any liens. Bankruptcy issues will also be addressed at that time. For more information regarding Bankruptcy and your settlement



5) When will I receive my final payment?
It will take several months for the entire settlement to fund since we must collect the signed settlement documents from all clients and forward them to AstraZeneca to review and approve. AstraZeneca estimates no claimant shall receive their settlement funds before October 1, 2011. Final payments will not be mailed until all lien and Bankruptcy issues related to your claim have been resolved.


6) Is there any way I can get paid sooner?
We will work with the Settlement Administrator to release your money as quickly as possible but we need your cooperation. The best way you can speed up the process is by sending back your signed documents as soon as possible. Keep in mind that we must receive signed settlement documents back from almost all of our clients and they must be approved by AstraZeneca before any money can be released. We will do all we can to speed up the process, but nothing can happen until we receive the signed settlement documents back in our office.


7) Can I discuss this confidential settlement with anyone?
You must not disclose the terms of this Settlement, including your settlement offer amount, to anyone except your lawyers, your accountant and/or financial advisors. 


8) Do I have to pay back Medicare or Medicaid when I receive my check?

No. Any obligation to repay Medicare or Medicaid will be deducted before you receive your check.


9) What if I have filed for Bankruptcy?
If you have ever filed for Bankruptcy, we must know where you stand at the time of settlement. If you have filed in the past or are considering filing in the future, you must notify us immediately so we can discuss what needs to be done to finalize your settlement. You may email us at seroquel@howardnations.com.


10) What if I borrowed money against my settlement?
If you borrowed money against your settlement, your lender should have put us on notice of the loan, and we are required to deduct funds from your settlement to repay the loan before your settlement money can be released to you. Please refer to the agreement you entered into with the lender for details regarding what you owe.


11.) Will this settlement affect my government benefits such as disability, Medicare or Medicaid?
Our firm does not advise clients on the effect of settlements on government benefits other than to recommend that you confer with a specialist. Many states impose a general cap on allowed income and assets in determining eligibility for benefits. Therefore, settlement money may be an important factor for purposes of determining your eligibility to receive or continue to receive benefits and whether a period of ineligibility for benefits is applicable in your case. If you are currently receiving or seeking to receive SSI, Medicaid, or any other needs-based government benefits, we strongly advise you to immediately contact an attorney who specializes in government benefits, estate planning, special needs trusts, or elder law, to provide you further information and assist you in this area prior to your acceptance of this settlement offer.

12.) I’ve been calling the phone number provided for the Settlement Hotline and I always get a recording. Why am I not getting a live person?
Your questions are very important to us. However, in order to more efficiently handle your settlement, we have set up this hotline. All messages will be returned as quickly as possible. We ask for your patience as we try to get you and all of our clients paid as quickly as possible. Remember that you can also send us an email to seroquel@howardnations.com.

SEROQUEL maker AstraZeneca sponsors (nongovernment) study: SHIELD -understanding diabetes mellitus! oh the irony!

The antipsychotic Seroquel has a black box warning for diabetes. How ironic that AstraZeneca has sponsored the largest nongovernment study of the risks of type 2 diabetes.

If one was to speculate on the inner-goings-on behind the scenes in boardroom meetings, one would question whether or not this was in fact a strategic plan, to counter the negative outcome of the diabetes side effect in AstraZeneca's blockbuster Seroquel. What better plan could there be to creating lifetime customers?

If you can't beat them join them? smack the injured parties in the face?

Just this week AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb announced their new diabetes drug dapagliflozin being developed has shown increased bladder and breast cancers in patients using the drug.

The development of a diabetes pill by 2 antipsychotic makers with drugs that have black box warnings for diabetes as a side effect is ironic enough, now we have AstraZeneca sponsoring a study on diabetes management.

This is a corporation, this is business, not philanthropy, not a feel good mission on behalf of AstraZeneca, this is a direct target into a market they essentially created with their drug: Seroquel induced diabetes.

There were 26,000 people who filed cases to sue AstraZeneca for taking Seroquel and becoming diabetic, that is 26,000 people who are possible candidates for their new pill, and the future market after the damage of Seroquel has been done.

Question for Seroquel victims: would you use this pill? would you participate in a study sponsored by the pharmaceutical company that sold the pill that gave you diabetes? would you have participated in SHIELD?

AZ Connections blog:

"The SHIELD study (The Study to Help Improve Early evaluation and management of risk factors Leading to Diabetes) showed that patients with risk factors related to their age, family history, and obesity significantly increase their risk of transition to type 2 diabetes by as much as 300 to 500 percent. Doctors who understand pre-diabetes risk factors and ask the right questions of their patients can quickly identify at-risk patients before they develop the disease, the study suggests."

Did AstraZeneca include a question of whether or not the person became diabetic as a result of ingesting quetiapine,Seroquel? The stats are skewed in percentages of adults and kids with diabetes in ALL surveys if that is not included. Considering the antipsychotic Seroquel is being dosed out for insomnia and anxiety, the possibilities are HUGE--that people are diabetic as a result of taking that pill. Those factors should be addressed.

Graph from the AZ Connections blog

"The SHIELD study is the largest nongovernmental study of its kind and was sponsored by AstraZeneca. SHIELD was a population-based survey conducted from 2004 to 2009 to better understand the risk for the development of diabetes mellitus, as well as disease burden.

“This collection of patient self-reported data has given us valuable real-world evidence of how doctors can help patients manage their risks of developing type 2 diabetes,” said Susan Grandy, PhD, Value Demonstration Leader and SHIELD Study Director, Health Economics & Outcomes Research at AstraZeneca."


ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS MAY LEAD TO EARLIER INTERVENTION IN PRE-DIABETES

From the AstraZeneca website:

June 28, 2011

"Asking the right questions may lead to earlier intervention in pre-diabetes

Could reduce rate of transition to type 2 diabetes, according to SHIELD study

June 28, 2011 – San Diego, CA – Predictors for type 2 diabetes are easily identifiable, according to a large community study undertaken to understand diabetes and the disease burden, and may lead to earlier intervention for people at risk. The findings were presented today at the American Diabetes Association’s 71st Annual Scientific Sessions.

SHIELD (The Study to Help Improve Early evaluation and management of risk factors Leading to Diabetes) is the largest non-governmental study of its kind.1 AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN) sponsored the study.

SHIELD data demonstrated that simple, easily available information, e.g., age, family history, obesity - characteristics adults can self-identify - are strong predictors for developing type 2 diabetes. The presence of these factors significantly boosts risk of transition, by as much as 300%-500%. Furthermore, clinicians may not need any other patient-reported symptom besides excessive thirst to further screen for type 2 diabetes. Active understanding of these pre-diabetes risk factors and early intervention may reduce transition to type 2 diabetes.

“We need to slow down the rate of transition to type 2 diabetes, said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, Endocrine and Metabolic Consultants in Rockville, MD and SHIELD study investigator. “SHIELD data can, ideally, be used to simplify the process by which clinicians identify and screen patients at risk of progressing, and help those in need get required support earlier.”

About SHIELD
SHIELD (The Study to Help Improve Early Evaluation and management of risk factors Leading to Diabetes) was a 5-year longitudinal population-based survey conducted from 2004 to 2009 to better understand the risk for the development of diabetes mellitus, as well as disease burden. The objectives of SHIELD have been to assess:

•Prevalence and incidence of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease (CVD)
•Disease burden
•Disease progression and transition from pre-disease to diagnosed disease
•Risk predictors of transitioning from pre-disease to diagnosed disease
•Knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding health

Of the 200,000 households that received the screening questionnaire in 2004, 127,420 households (containing a total of 211,097 adults) returned completed questionnaires.1 The follow-up baseline survey was mailed to 22,001 respondents to be followed over the subsequent five years with annual surveys.


The evaluation of transition to type 2 diabetes was analyzed from 11,238 respondents who had no diagnosis of diabetes at baseline and completed at least one or more follow-up surveys."
-----


HOW ABOUT EARLY PREVENTION BEING DON'T TAKE SEROQUEL OR YOU MIGHT BECOME DIABETIC?

THE 26,000 SEROQUEL LAWSUIT CASES WERE PREVENTABLE. AstraZeneca knew the drug could cause diabetes which is documented in internal papers and emails. The company buried the data and sold the drug anyway.

If you were injured with  lifetime diabetes as a result of taking Seroquel, find a lawyer if you can find one willing to get your case to trial, with a jury, because a grave injustice has been done to you, in fact it's a corporate crime that the company has not admitted guilt for committing.

You deserve better than that, and AstraZeneca wants to create a diabetes pill for you as a consolation gift. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$




*Editor of AZ Health Connections is Tony Jewell the PR spokesman typically quoted in articles when litigation or DoJ fines are reported, he usually 'denies guilt' as a representative of AstraZeneca. This could deem him 'the voice of evil'....at least to innocent victims of  the Seroquel scandal resulting in diabetes due to skewed and buried data, but we'll leave the description at Editor of AZ Health Connections for now.

AstraZeneca Seroquel - Miscarriage of Justice - Bad Drug – Bad Settlement –Injured Parties being Victimized yet again by their own Legal Representation – Settlement Rejection Coming

AstraZeneca Seroquel - Miscarriage of Justice - Bad Drug – Bad Settlement  –Injured  Parties being Victimized yet again by their own Legal Representation – Settlement Rejection Coming

This is another post in a continuing series of articles regarding AstraZeneca – Seroquel, the litigation, and about those that were injured by this dangerous, illegally marketed, & serious hidden side effects consequences resulting from AstraZeneca’s actions & this drug.

In the past I’ve written about how our federal government through the department of justice allowed a settlement of 520 million dollars for these many crimes and for the recovery of fraudulent Medicare monies to happen without any admission of wrong doing or guilt. How states have signed onto another 86 millions dollars in settlement dollars involving Medicare fraud and other related crimes, again without any admission of wrong doing or guilt.

Links: AstraZeneca Seroquel Litigation - is the civil settlement real or just another rip off

Seroquel Lawsuit - Are Plaintiff Law Firms working in their clients (injured parties) best interest or just their own?

Today let us focus upon the real victims as it relates to the continued suffering and injustice being perpetrated by AstraZeneca’s unconscionable actions & the plaintiff law firms that are supposed to be representing victims best interest.

They are those unfortunate citizens that took this drug and are now suffering the dire consequences with life long conditions including diabetes and various other documented side effects (including death) caused by the ingestion of Seroquel.

In correspondence with an unnamed confidential plaintiff in this Seroquel litigation; I hope to bring the reader new and eye opening information as it comes to light.

From a phone correspondence as relayed to me by my source:

Thursday June 23, 2011 - Megan Elliot administrative assistant for “YouHaveALawyer” or Saiontz & Kirk P.A. youhavealawyer.com

How much compensation did your firm receive to sell my case? I can answer that one, its split 50/50 depending on whether it was fee of 33% or 40%; it would be 16.5% or 20% for each firm.

The other questions asked would be relayed to the Miller Firm LLC and source was told they should receive a response from them Monday or Tuesday.

----

Monday June 27, 2011 paraphrased answers Kate Hamilton Miller Firm LLC representative millerfirmllc :

Source was told the compensation to buy my case was said to be 50% of 40% contingency fee correct? Saiontz&Kirk are considered co-counsel.

So even though Saiontz&Kirk P.A. can’t answer questions regarding the sources case or were involved in the mediation or actual ongoing litigation you consider them co-counsel? Saiontz & Kirk are a attorney referral service we use

I understand that part of this agreement is that the Miller Firm LLC has agreed to promote and have 100% acceptance/compliance to this (unknown to me) reached settlement agreement? I’m not sure it’s worded that way, as I’m not familiar with the Zyprexa settlement: we believe this is a good/fair settlement and will not be representing any injured parties further if they decline this settlement offer.

I would like to request all discovery and related materials to do with my case including transcripts or notes from the mediation so I can seek further representation when I refuse this publicly reported or estimated poor settlement offer? There are no mediation notes or transcripts, the attorney’s just get together and talk. We’ll send you a copy of your file.

Source was told on numerous occasions false or misleading information about receiving this “settlement packet”, what new news can you offer me at this time? The Medicare holdback is about 45% complete, and we expect the packets going out in 30 to 45 days (this is would a year after Bloomberg news reported a settlement had been reached in the seroquel litigation)

This was another one of those unsatisfactory conversations with the Miller Firm LLC that is supposedly working for this sources best interest.

What the source gleaned from this questioning interaction was that Saiontz & Kirk is a case/claim broker. They advertise, gather hundreds of cases, and sell them to other firms for a nice profit with virtual little or no risk.

Here the source was under the impression that Saiontz & Kirk had accepted this case & were going to represent aggressively this sources' best interest. Instead, it appears the source was nothing much more than a case commodity to sell off for profit. Talk about being betrayed & mislead! One could gather “co-counsel” actually means simply a 20% client finders fee in the legal world of today. That’s some code of ethical conduct the legal profession has going on there.

Source also found out that what the “Miller Firm LLC” considers a good deal; means it’s a good deal for them, and it doesn’t really matter what their “bought” client thinks, believes, or what is in the actual injured parties’ best interest. This is all about the wheeling and dealing; quick settlements and big payoffs for these firms.

It will be interesting to know with further investigation whether the Miller Firm LLC had any cases prepared for trial, did any thorough vetting of cases, did due diligence in gathering pertinent information for each client they represented, or if they even ever intended to take a single case to trial.

I can only make an educated assumption/guess from their distant and cool attitudes and interactions with their client; they probably never planned or intended to represent anyone in an actual trial before  a jury. That would have cost them too much money and risk; especially when they have their sure easy payoff in this secret deal.

 _________________________________

Someone recently posted what was reported to be their seroquel injury settlement offer on the Topix Seroquel Lawsuit Forum

DISCLAIMER about Topix Forum: this forum has a long and checkered history of providing spam, false, and misleading information. To use any reports generated from postings there; one would need to always verify the information with well documented & collaborating evidence. The following post is being used solely as a broad & fictional example, and should not be considered absolute truth, or should it be relied upon as actual concrete or substantial evidence.

http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/seroquel/THGBMKUTV8QPJDVUL/p93

Clarence

Wichita Falls, TX #1893

Friday Jun 24

“Received settlement packet from The Garretson Resolution Group on June 16, 2011. I was in the non-insulin diabetic group. Total estimated gross award amount was $18,321.76. 40% estimated gross attorney fee $7,328.70. Estimated settlement amount after attorney fee $10,993.06. Estimated settlement amount after fees and expenses $10,375.25. Estimated Medicare Holdback $7,328.64. Estimated Net Amount Due To Claimant $3,046.61”

Even if these reported above figures are anywhere within the ballpark of reality…it would be made quite clear to any casual observer or interested party who’s best interest  are being served.

 It is definitely not rocket science after all to conclude that claimants/injured parties interest were a very minor focus in this reported secret negotiated settlement mediation proceedings between the AstraZeneca’s Legal Team and Plaintiff Attorney’s.

Attorney Fee $ 7328.70 (more than Twice the amount the injured party will receive)

Fees??: just over $600 (one can only guess this is for another law firm to do administrative work in coordinating who gets what and the distribution of settlement packets)

Government - Medicare Holdback $7,328.64 (more than twice the amount of what the injured party will receive; plus this amount is on top of the DOJ 520 million and States 86 million recovery)

Claimant – Injured party$3,046.61 (that is the person who has been directly injured by Seroquel; who will have a life time detrimental health condition and will incur massive medical expenses, a permanent disability, experience loss in quality of life, continued suffering, a shortened life span, and a whole host of other related negative factors)

-----------------

 So what are the ethical and legal responsibilities of the Plaintiff Attorney’s – here’s a broad generalized overview of their responsibilities brought to you by wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_injury_lawyer

Responsibilities

A personal injury lawyer has numerous responsibilities in serving his or her clients. These responsibilities encompass both professional and ethical rules and codes of conduct set forth by state bar associations where the lawyers are licensed. Once licensed to practice law by their state bar association, lawyers are legally permitted to file legal complaints, argue cases in state court, draft legal documents, and offer legal advice to victims of personal injury.
Also referred to as a plaintiff lawyer, a personal injury lawyer is responsible for interviewing prospective clients and evaluating their cases to determine the legal matter, identify the distinct issues rooted within the plaintiff’s larger problem, and extensively research every issue to build a strong case. The ultimate professional responsibility of a personal injury lawyer is to help plaintiffs obtain the justice and compensation they deserve for their losses and suffering through advocacy, oral arguments, client counseling, and legal advice.
Personal injury lawyers must also adhere to strict standards of legal ethics when dealing with clients. While the guidelines vary according to state, the basic codes of conduct state that a lawyer must knowledgeably evaluate legal matters and exercise competence in any legal matter undertaken. Moreover, personal injury lawyers owe their clients a duty of loyalty and confidentiality and must work to protect their clients’ best interests.
-----

I can only suggest if you or a loved one is involved in the seroquel litigation, that you contact your state bar association and the federal attorney generals office to file a formal request for an investigation & complaint.

Dr. Charles Schulz , University of Minnesota, Dan Markingson and the Seroquel CAFE study--the UMN says no further discussion, calls Carl Elliott a 'crusader'

Journalist William Heisel asks University of Minnesota's Dr. Charles Schulz for interview-no reply--PR says no more discussion of Dan Markingson's case, and calls Carl Elliott a crusader against the University and Dr.Charles Schulz.


Schulz, was the principal investigator in the CAFE study of Seroquel, which hangs over the University as a dark cloud, due to the death--suicide--of Dan Markingson.

Heisel, in persuit of a more detailed discussion with Schulz, never heard from Dr.Schulz (who is currently overseeing a Seroquel XR trial for Borderline at the UMN), but did receive an email from the public relations department representative. What transpired in that email essentially demotes Carl Elliott, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota into a one-man crusader against the University and Dr. Schulz. The University has taken a stand now, that no more discussion is necessary regarding the death of Dan Markingson, in fact the UMN is attempting to disconnect the death and the trial, all of it.

Red flag alert! if the University has nothing to hide then why not talk? attempting to bury the discussion runs along the same lines as AstraZeneca burying the Study 15 for Seroquel, or the hiding of the diabetes and weight gain side effects as AstraZeneca did for years.

Why is the University allowing a placebo vs. Seroquel XR trial for Borderline Disorder? the drug is already on the market, and against a placebo? sounds like another patent extender indication, get them all approved before the drug goes generic and off patent.

Why won't Schulz talk? they've all decided this is no longer worthy of mass media attention. Who decides that?

Read William Heisel's article here-at the Reporting on Health blog. "The Markingson Files: University of Minnesota dallies on clinical trial documentation". Besides the lack of interviews the UMN is also dragging their feet sending Heisel documents, in essence it appears the UMN has flipped the bird at Heisel and anyone else interested in the Markingson case, and Schulz and AstraZeneca Seroquel trials are business as usual, nevermind that Schulz has in the past has received income from AstraZeneca.

No conflict of interest there......

CIRCARE: Citizens for Responsible Care and Research: Dan Markingson: AstraZeneca Sponsored CAFE Trial at the University of Minnesota

Dan Markingson: AstraZeneca Sponsored CAFE Trial at the University of Minnesota

Came upon this wonderful site that is chronicling the Dan Markingson story:  This is a must read story of pharmaceutical greed gone haywire in our scholastic institutions. This story goes far beyond the corporate money and corruption that has infiltrated are university medical and research systems. This is a tragic story of life lost and the well orchestrated cover-up that has ensued since.

__________

circare.org

2011-06-15: We appreciate your patience while we work on this page.

Litigation Documents Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679
Efficacy and Tolerability of Olanzapine, Quetiapine and Risperidone in the Treatment of First Episode Psychosis: A Randomized Double-Blind 52-Week Comparison Trial Number 5077IL/0114 Rev. 2: Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2003-03-01 [Bates IRB000140-91]: http://www.circare.org/dw/cafeprotocol_rev2_20030301.pdf
Stephen C. Olson, M.D. FDA Establishment Inspection Report Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [Exhibit J] 2005-07-22: http://www.circare.org/dw/olson_fdaeir_20050722.pdf
Deposition of Stephen C. Olson, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [Court File No. 62-CO-06-11934] 2007-05-01: http://www.circare.org/dw/olson_depo_20070501.txt

(See bookmarks) Exhibits to Deposition of Stephen L. Olson, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679: http://www.circare.org/dw/Olson_exhibits_online.pdf

Bates IRB 000001-000184 Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [UM IRB documents]: http://www.circare.org/dw/umirb_cafe.pdf
Deposition of Charles Schulz, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [Court File No. 62-CO-06-11934] 2007-06-22: http://www.circare.org/dw/schulz_deposition_20070622.txt

(See bookmarks) Exhibits, Pt.1 to Deposition of Charles Schulz, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [Court File No. 62-CO-06-11934]: http://www.circare.org/dw/schulz_ex1.pdf
(See bookmarks) Exhibits, Pt.2 to Deposition of Charles Schulz, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [Court File No. 62-CO-06-11934]: http://www.circare.org/dw/schulz_ex2.pdf
(See bookmarks) Exhibits, Pt.3 to Deposition of Charles Schulz, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [Court File No. 62-CO-06-11934]: http://www.circare.org/dw/schulz_ex3.pdf
(See bookmarks) Exhibits, Pt.4 to Deposition of Charles Schulz, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 [Court File No. 62-CO-06-11934]: http://www.circare.org/dw/schulz_ex4.pdf

Deposition of Jeanne Kenney, LCSW Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-05-08: http://www.circare.org/dw/kenney_depo_20070508.txt
Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. Summary of Expected Testimony Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/appelbaum_20071112.pdf

Richard Lentz, M.D. Summary of Expected Testimony Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/lentz_20071112.pdf
Ernest D. Prentice, Ph.D. Summary of Expected Testimony Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/prentice_20071112.pdf
Robyn S. Shapiro, J.D. Summary of Expected Testimony Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/shapiro_20071112.pdf

David Dunner, M.D. Defendants Dr. Stephen Olson's and Dr. Charles Schulz's and the University of Minnesota Physician's Disclosure of Findings and Opinions of Expert Witness David Dunner, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/dunner_20071112.pdf

Jan Fawcett, M.D. Defendants Dr. Stephen Olson's and Dr. Charles Schulz's and the University of Minnesota Physician's Disclosure of Findings and Opinions of Expert Witness Jan Fawcett, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/fawcett_20071112.pdf
Ira D. Glick, M.D. Defendants Dr. Stephen Olson's and Dr. Charles Schulz's and the University of Minnesota Physician's Disclosure of Findings and Opinions of Expert Witness Ira D. Glick, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/glick_20071112.pdf
Ronald Groat, M.D. Defendants Dr. Stephen Olson's and Dr. Charles Schulz's and the University of Minnesota Physician's Disclosure of Findings and Opinions of Expert Witness Ronald Groat, M.D. Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-12: http://www.circare.org/dw/groat_20071112.pdf

Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Dr. Stephen Olson's and Dr. Charles Schulz's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 145.682 and for Summary Judgment Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2007-11-30: http://www.circare.org/dw/27cv071679_20071130.pdf
Order and Memorandum Granting Partial Summary Judgment Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN 27-CV-07-1679 2008-02-11: http://www.circare.org/dw/27cv071679_order_20080211.pdf
Defendants Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota and Institutional Review Board's Notice of Taxation of Costs and Bill of Costs and Disbursements Weiss v. UM et al. Fourth Dist. Ct. Hennepin County, MN CV-07-1679 2008-04-29: http://www.circare.org/dw/uminn_20080429.pdf
The Markingson Case. Scribd 2011-05-01 [documents]: http://www.scribd.com/MarkingsonCase/documents

top

University of Minnesota Correspondence RE: Death of Dan Markingson in the CAFE Trial
Hon. Clyde Allen, Jr. on Behalf of the Board of Regents, Response to Professor Carl Elliot et al. 2011-02-07: http://www.ahc.umn.edu/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/documents/content/ahc_content_295041.pdf
Mark B. Rotenberg Elaboration on Behalf of the Board of Regents RE: Response to Professor Carl Elliot et al. 2011-02-07: http://www.ahc.umn.edu/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/documents/content/ahc_content_295042.pdf
Carl Elliot et al., University of Minnesota Faculty Letter to Regents: Call for Outside Investigation of Markingson Suicide. 2010-12-06: http://ptable.blogspot.com/2010/12/university-of-minnesota-faculty-letter.html

Professional Commentary
The Deadly Corruption of Clinical Trials. Carl Elliot. Mother Jones September/October 2010: http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/dan-markingson-drug-trial-astrazeneca
How FDA Got the Markingson Case Wrong. Carl Elliot. Bioethics Forum 2011-03-03: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=5147&blogid=140&blogid=140

Media Coverage
University of Minnesota GC Responds to Critics. Shannon Green. Corporate Counsel 2011: http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleFriendlyCC.jsp?id=1202493390862
Rotenberg MR. The Academic Health Center Responds to Carl Elliott's Media Outreach. University of Minnesota Press Release Undated [response to Mother Jones article]: http://www.ahc.umn.edu/media/carlelliottresponse/
Dan Markingson's suicide: U of M attorney responds [UPDATE]. Andy Mannix Minneapolis/St. Paul News — The Blotter 2010-12-08: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/12/dan_markingsons.php
Dan Markingson's 2004 suicide: U of M faculty seek investigation. Andy Mannix Minneapolis/St. Paul News — The Blotter 2010-12-06: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/12/dan_markingson.php
Dan Markingson's 2004 suicide: U of M Board of Regents won't reopen the case. Andy Mannix Minneapolis/St. Paul News — The Blotter 2011-02-11: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/02/dan_markingsons_1.php
Mary Weiss responds to VP Mulcahy. The Minnesota Daily 2011-03-02: http://www.mndaily.com/2011/03/02/mary-weiss-responds-vp-mulcahy

Errata
Archived Telecast House Health Care and Human Services Policy Oversight Committee, Minnesota House of Representatives. Hearing on HF388 (Dan's Law) 2009-03-11: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=86&event_id=153
Adityanjee v. Case W. Res. Univ., 156 Ohio App.3d 432, 2004-Ohio-1109 [Dr. Schulz: see CV, p. 4, Exhibits to Deposition Pt. 1 and pp. 6, 9/17 ff]: http://www.circare.org/dw/2004-ohio-1109.pdf
Memo: Jeffrey J. Goldstein to M Czupryna RE: Sales and Marketing in Charge of Seroquel Research 1997-11-17: http://www.circare.org/dw/goldstein_19971117.pdf

top

If you find the information on this page helpful please support CIRCARE with a tax-deductible contribution today. Because CIRCARE doesn't accept funds from pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturers, we depend on contributions from individuals like you to help us advocate for meaningful protection of human subjects in research. Find out more on our Support page

---