Litigation Re Baxter's Tainted Heparin Underway

The litigation phase of the tainted-heparin scandal (start here and here for important background) appears to be well underway, and veiled milestones of the personal-injury suits will evidently be given by the blogging lawyers at Drug and Device Law, who are "involved in the litigation" (presumably representing Baxter, given their unwavering pro-defendent stance).

Yesterday's DDL post crows about a recent ruling on the limited permissible testimony from a plaintiff's expert (ie, Daubert rulings).* Topics of expertise are confined, ruled US District Court Judge James G. Carr, who rejected testimony on wider issues on the potential risks of doing business in China.

If I'm correctly reading the subtext of the DDL post and the ruling, the foundation of the heparin litigation appears to rest on what Baxter should have done to ensure that its Chinese raw heparin wasn't tainted. Although, given that the contaminant, OSCS, was a heretofore unknown heparin contaminant, and the fact that the FDA still hasn't identified the ultimate source of the contaminant in China, I'm not sure how it would have been possible for Baxter (or its heparin supplier) to police for it.

Now it may be a matter of arguing (per the plaintiffs) that Baxter should have known when it was dealing with reputable Chinese suppliers. But (the counterargument might go), obviously not everything that comes of out China is dangerous, so how or when should a US company know with whom to do overseas business? (And especially when that Chinese company has its own set of potentially murky suppliers.)

I'm not necessarily a fan of Baxter, but it seems like a very difficult argument** for the plaintiffs in this era of undeniable globalization.

OSCS = oversulfated chondroitin sulfate.

* And the DDL team directed a particular slam at the "ubiquitous plaintiff's expert," Suzanne Parisian, MD, who may be prone to "elaboration," the ruling implied.

** At least a difficulat argument outside of a sympathetic jury.