Hemophilia AIDS Litigation
Baum Hedlund Settled Over 450 Hemophilia HIV/AIDS Cases
Baum Hedlund has represented clients worldwide and has represented victims of defective pharmaceutical products since 1988. In particular, our attorneys successfully settled over 450 United States hemophilia HIV/AIDS cases. With Michael Baum and Leslie Grisham at the helm, Baum Hedlund began representing HIV-infected hemophiliacs in 1997 and quickly became a leader in the battle to obtain compensation for them. Since then, Baum Hedlund added Fran Phares to the team, an attorney who spent several years handling hemophilia-AIDS cases with our co-counsel, Mull & Mull.
In the 1980s and 1990s, many hemophiliacs contracted the deadly HIV/AIDS infection by infusing a plasma-derived medication (known as Anti-hemophilia factor or “AHF”) that was intended to prevent bleeding and promote blood-clotting in hemophiliacs. In addition to investigating domestic cases of this phenomenon, our investigation of the late shipment and use of non-heat treated AHF in various foreign countries including China, Japan, Ireland and England led us to accepting select foreign hemophilia-AIDS cases, as well.
Call (855) 948-5098 or fill out our online form to request a free case evaluation.
Background: When Did Hemophiliac AIDS Infections Begin?
In the early 1980’s, Taiwanese hemophiliacs were infected with HIV by contaminated American-made medications. They or their surviving families filed claims for injuries they incurred due to those HIV-infections. Defendants are American pharmaceutical companies Bayer Corporation (formerly known as “Cutter”) and Baxter Healthcare who manufactured injected medications designed to stop hemophiliacs’ uncontrolled bleeding episodes.
Anti-hemophilia medications (“AHF”) were derived from paid donors whose plasma provided proteins that hemophiliacs needed to cause their blood to coagulate and stop bleeding. Those proteins, “Factor VIII” or “Factor IX,” were extracted from vats of plasma by a multi-step process that resulted in a freeze-dried powder. Thousands of plasma donations were pooled in those vats to make multiple products, including the AHF powder. AHF powder could then be dissolved in a saline solution and injected into infant, pediatric and adult hemophiliacs. Because AHF was ultimately injected, it was important that the plasma donors used to make AHF did not carry blood-borne diseases which would be transmitted to hemophiliacs when they infused AHF to stop bleeds.
In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, U.S. law required the companies to use plasma from normal, healthy donors (U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) §§640.51 and 640.63) and to employ manufacturing practices to assure that blood products like AHF were “safe, pure, potent and effective” §606.140a. By 1975 it was known that individuals whose sexual activity included rectal intercourse with multiple partners had a high prevalence of hepatitis B and other sexually transmitted diseases, and it was recommended that these individuals “be advised to refrain from blood donations.” Szmuness, et al., On the Role of Sexual Behavior in the Spread of Hepatitis B Infection, Annals of Internal Medicine. October 1975; 489,494.]
Donors such as promiscuous urban “fast-track” gay males and prisoners who engaged in rectal intercourse, and intravenous drug users, were not considered to be “normal, healthy donors” and thus more likely to be high risk for transmitting blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C. Notwithstanding, manufacturers sought these high-risk donors (1) since their life styles (or prison conditions) exposed them to diseases against which their bodies generated valuable antibodies which could be harvested and sold at high prices — antibody-rich general or disease-specific immune globulins were made from the same vats of pooled plasma used to make AHF. It was cost effective, although unsafe for hemophiliacs in the absence of a viral deactivation step, to make multiple products from the same vats of plasma.
Defective AHF Shipped to Taiwan in 1970s
AHF was first shipped to Taiwan from the U.S. in the late 1970s. By July of 1982, the Centers for Disease Control’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2) was reporting that hemophiliacs were exhibiting symptoms of a disease previously observed in gay men, later termed “AIDS.” AHF manufacturers quietly met to discuss the “political, moral and liability” issues related to their having used plasma obtained from high-risk sources.
By December 1982, after injecting chimpanzees (3) with AHF and noting that they had developed “AIDS-like symptoms,” the manufacturers had strong proof that AHF was highly likely to transmit the agent that caused AIDS. Moreover, they had long known certain plasma-screening protocols would make AHF safer and that a viral-deactivation treatment was available. Bayer/Cutter’s medical consultant Dr. Lou Aledort of Mt. Sinai cautioned that once this product was licensed, it would be unethical to place a patient on other therapy” (emphasis supplied).
In 1983, Dr. Milton Mozen, head of Bayer/Cutter’s California research lab, wrote to its R&D director Dr. Sternberg and virologist, Dr. Robert Louie:
The recent concern about AIDS . . . should encourage a rapid review and approval of the submission [of an FDA license for heat-treated AHF]. . . [I]t is certainly logical that a heat-treated product . . . should be potentially safer than one not heated. Such a product should be made available . . . in as rapid a time frame as possible even without the final unequivocal demonstration of its freedom from hepatitis and/or AIDS.
However, in March of 1983, once Bayer/Cutter’s competitor, Baxter Healthcare, was granted its license for heat-treated AHF, Bayer/Cutter failed to heed the advice of Dr. Aledort and Dr. Mozen. Instead, Bayer/Cutter discouraged use of the new heat treated AHF, recommending use of AHF like Bayer’s that were supposedly subjected to heightened plasma screening. That is, keep using Bayer/Cutter’s un-heated AHF and don’t use Baxter’s heated AHF. (Exh. 65) Thus, heedless of the grave concern over an AIDS epidemic spreading amongst AHF patients, in their overseas-marketing materials (4) Bayer/Cutter suggested that a viral deactivation heat-treatment of AHF had not been shown to be effective. So instead of focusing on making AHF safer, it actively concealed its solicitation and use of high-risk blood donors (5) such as IV-drug users, prisoners, and promiscuous fast-track homosexuals; Bayer/Cutter dragged its feet in enacting safety measures such as viral deactivation; and it actively resisted product recalls. All this was done to protect profit (6) margins, with insufficient concern for hemophiliacs who were unknowingly infusing contaminated and deadly AHF medicine.
Bayer/Cutter maintained this marketing position critical of heat treating until Bayer/Cutter could market a heat-treated product of its own even after defendants’ heat-treated AHF was licensed. They began selling the safer AHF in the U.S. but continued to sell excess inventories of un-heated and HIV-contaminated AHF in foreign countries (7), including Taiwan with no plans to halt or recall contaminated AHF because they would lose money: “A major recall could deprive Cutter of up to $2 million [in] sales in the Far East . . .during 1984.”
Bayer/Cutter Discovers that HIV Survives AHF Manufacturing Process
Bayer/Cutter participated in a study to determine whether HIV survived the AHF manufacturing process. In May of 1984, it was reported that the study determined that it did. Likewise, the study tested whether HIV survived Bayer’s heat-treating process. The study determined that HIV did not survive Bayer’s heat-treating process. Later in 1984, the CDC MMWR published results of HIV testing in hemophiliacs who had been using un-heated AHF. 75% of frequent Factor VIII AHF users tested HIV positive. Thus, by mid 1984, Bayer knew its unheated product did not deactivate the HIV virus, that most hemophiliacs using it were testing HIV-positive, and that their heat-treatment process killed the HIV virus. Notwithstanding, it continued to sell and distribute its inventory of unheated AHF.
Likewise, by 1984, some countries were becoming aware of the AIDS risk from AHF. Bayer/Cutter’s 1985 Far East Marketing Plan (prepared in August 1984) lamented that the “luster” was gone from their AHF growth figures because sales to New Zealand “completely diminished” when “AIDS became an issue there.” Fortunately, as the plan advised, because hepatitis was prevalent in the Far East, “AIDS will not become a major issue amongst Asian hematologists during 1985.” So the company pushed even more contaminated AHF into the Far East, including Taiwan. Bayer/Cutter projected that “[the company would] have excess [AHF] in 1985 and [would] need to sell as much of it as possible, even at marginal prices. . .” But the plan warned “[h]ysteria over AIDS could reduce [AHF] sales. . .” Even so, the company had “no immediate plans to introduce Koate-HT . . .” instead intending to “dominate the [Taiwan] markets with low-cost standard Koate and Konyne” and to introduce heat-treated AHF only “if necessary to defend against AIDS.” To that end, it reassured Asian consumers that its unheated AHF was “not hazardous” and was the “same fine product we have supplied for years.”
Through June 1985, defendants actively depleted inventories of “this same fine product,” which by then had been banned in the U.S. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) head Dr. Harry Meyer told Cutter that it must quietly surrender its license for unheated AHF or it would be publicly revoked, a scenario he and the manufacturers wanted to avoid. Although AHF manufacturers, including Bayer/Cutter, “responded with a list of reasons why they had problems with the proposal, including the value of the inventory . . .” Meyer responded, “no one anywhere in the world should be allowed continued exposure to the HTLVIII virus.” Reluctantly, the company surrendered its license. (8)
Unethical and Dangerous Recall Practices in Taiwan
Among the dangerous conduct Bayer/Cutter hid was its recall practice in Taiwan. In October 1983, it recalled 16 contaminated AHF lots shipped to both U.S. and international consignees, including Taiwan. The U.S. consignees were told all 16 lots were being recalled (9) because they contained plasma from a donor with AIDS, but the Taiwan consignee was only told that two lots were being recalled and then merely because a donor was suspected of having AIDS.
By April of 1984, Bayer/Cutter was training its international sales force to sell heat-treated AHF. Yet it delayed for over a year before sharing with overseas customers that heat-treated AHF was safer and non-heat treated AHF was a thing of the past. Finally, over 18 months after it began selling heat-treated AHF in the U.S., and five months after an international symposium had warned against using non-heat treated AHF, Bayer/Cutter notified its local rep in Taiwan to return any unheated AHF.
A few HIV-infected American hemophiliacs sued the AHF manufacturers in the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many more Americans sued, and their claims were settled in 1997. In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products Litigation, 159 F. 3d 1016 (7th Cir. 1998). More claims were litigated and/or settled separately around this time.
Meanwhile, in early 1998, defendants negotiated an agreement through Taiwan’s Department of Health (“DOH”) and hemophiliac representatives to provide “humanitarian aid to hemophiliacs who contracted HIV.” In that negotiation, Bayer falsely claimed (10) that it was not at fault, and [had] won all relevant cases worldwide. Bayer representatives (11) who participated in the negotiations identified in discovery were Dr. Michael Strucksberg, a German resident who led the negotiation, and four Bayer employees from outside Taiwan: Horst Mueck of Germany, American attorneys, William Hammes and Thomas Kerr, and an individual named Paul Martin, whose current location has never been established. Bayer’s local counsel, attorney C.T. Lee, translated documents.
Dr. Strucksberg also prepared a news release which ran in Taiwan newspapers. A companion article was published in Taiwan’s United Daily News. Contrary to what they represented to the DOH and the press, in truth, defendants had not “won all relevant cases worldwide”: In March 1997, a jury had found Bayer negligent and awarded $2 million to plaintiffs. Bayer had also lost a summary-judgment motion, which led to a settlement.
Instead of disclosing these critical losses, Bayer asserted its innocence by claiming to have “won,” (12) a case where the plaintiff exclusively used another company’s AHF during the time period he became infected with HIV. Against this fraudulent backdrop, the defendants offered a nominal sum of $60,000 US, which they termed “humanitarian aid” for this “unavoidable tragedy,” to each Taiwanese hemophiliac.
Crucial to the agreement was a “most-favored-nation” or “scale-up” clause which provided: “After having paid monetary compensations to some Claimants, if [the] Manufacturer decides to raise the compensation amount of paragraph 1 of this agreement or provide additional benefits in order to reach settlement with other Claimants regarding [the] Infection Incident, it shall also provide the same additional amount or additional benefits to Claimants who have already been paid.”
Consistent with the scale-up clause, Taiwan’s United Daily News reported on February 14, 1998, that Taiwan’s Minister of Health had said that the compensation/humanitarian aid “shall not be different from other countries.” Between the spring of 1998 and the end of 2002, Taiwanese plaintiffs signed a Chinese-language version of a humanitarian-aid agreement.
On May 22, 2003, the New York Times published an article entitled 2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 1980’s: Riskier Type Went Overseas, which revealed the defendants’ negligent, intentional, and fraudulent conduct. The article was republished in Taiwan newspapers.
Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs learned that defendants had paid other HIV-infected claimants more compensation. In May 2004 plaintiffs sent a letter to Bayer’s U.S. counsel requesting enforcement of the scale-up clause. The defendants refused, and plaintiffs timely sued in California.
Leading the Charge on Hemophiliac AIDS Litigation
As early as July 1982, when the U.S. Department of Health’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the first AIDS cases amongst hemophiliacs, AIDS was linked to AHF presumably due to the manufacturers’ having included plasma from a person with AIDS in pools of plasma used to make the AHF those hemophiliacs infused. During our investigation of these cases, the evidence showed that AHF manufacturers should have known this in 1982 – but for years they fended off hemophiliacs’ HIV infection cases by asserting that there was nothing AHF manufacturers could have or should have done to prevent HIV contamination of their products until late 1983 or early 1984, when the manufacturers claim it was indisputably determined that AIDS was a blood borne disease caused by a virus.
In one of our first cases in this area, Wisner Baum represented a New York resident with a late HIV/AIDS infection who was also subject to an extended statute of limitations under New York legislation. This meant that his case was not burdened with the primary impediments to prior hemophilia-AIDS cases: the statute of limitations and foreseeability. Wisner Baum timely filed his suit just before he turned 21; and by the time he was infected in late 1984 or early 1985, HIV infection from AHF was foreseeable.
With the established studies proving HIV transmission from unheated AHF, and the availability of virus-free heat-treated AHF, HIV infection of hemophiliacs ought to have been eliminated after heat treated AHF became available, even by the manufacturers’ standards. Reasonable manufacturing and marketing practices dictated market withdrawal of all non-heat treated product after AHF manufacturers knew that heat-treated AHF did not transmit HIV. Instead of acting prudently, AHF manufacturers continued to sell and encourage the use of non-heat treated AHF in both the United States and abroad to maximize their profit and clear their non-heat treated inventory. As a result, many hemophiliacs, such as this Baum Hedlund client, were needlessly infected with the AIDS virus.
$2.0 Billion Verdict Personal Injury
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s.
$105 Million Settlement Pharmaceutical Settlement
Wisner Baum obtained $105 million on behalf of multiple clients involved in a pharmaceutical negligence case.
$18 Million Settlement Whistleblower Settlement
Wisner Baum secured an $18 million settlement against the Boeing Company for overcharging the U.S. government on aircraft maintenance.
$17.5 Million Settlement A Major US Plane Crash
Wisner Baum obtained a $17.5 million settlement on behalf of a client who was killed in a major U.S. plane crash.
$15 Million Settlement Truck Accident
Our firm successfully negotiated a $15 million catastrophic injury settlement for our clients. The case stemmed from a Southern California accident involving a commercial truck and a pedestrian.
Multiple lawyers recommended Wisner Baum to me and I have been consistently impressed with the quality of their work.- Best Law Firms Survey
Wisner Baum are not only amazing attorneys but more importantly, they are activists. They are about changing the systems which got us into trouble in the first place. They understand their role in the process of making change.- Kim Witczak
The Wisner Baum firm has some of the top legal minds in the country; they are driven, determined, trustworthy, ethical and passionate.- From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms
Thanks to your efforts I was able to recover from a tragic experience and turn my life around for the best.- W.T.
A special thank you to your Spanish-speaking staff for the extra effort put into this case. The language barrier was never a problem, and we are so very thankful to them. Your name holds much respect in our family.- G.C. & C.C
It is obvious that the people at Wisner Baum believe in what they do. And that you all really care about your clients.- The B. Family
I appreciate that you care about how I feel and that you take time to use your talents to ensure your every contact with me is warmly professional.- A.D.B.
I wanted a fair settlement within an appropriate time frame, and without any public scrutiny. With your hard work and dedication, we were able to achieve those goals.- T.O.