Jury slams Hospira with $10 million verdict
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...93/jury-slams-hospira-with-10-million-verdict
Jury slams Hospira with $10 million verdict
.
A Lake County jury awarded almost $10 million to a former Hospira employee, finding that the company fired him because he raised concerns that it covered up quality and safety issues with a product.
Hospira said it will appeal and that it maintains that the allegations are “fully without merit.”
The former employee, Angel Estrada, was a vice president of quality systems and compliance for the Lake Forest-based pharmaceutical company from September 2010 to September 2011, when the company fired him, according to a lawsuit filed in Lake County Circuit Court.
Estrada raised concerns to supervisors that Hospira was not addressing issues in one of its medical pumps that a hospital in Spain reported to the company. The hospital reported that air bubbles had occurred in the device when used on children, which can cause fatalities, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that Estrada reached out to his superiors, including Hospira CEO Michael Ball, to address the reported issues and notify the FDA and European regulators of the pump's alleged defects.
The lawsuit alleges that on the same day Estrada sent Ball a report, two employees under Estrada were fired “purportedly for altering a record during the course of an audit.” Hospira fired Estrada “under the pretext of not properly investigating” one of the employee's conduct during the audit, the lawsuit says.
The real reason he was fired “was to quash his reporting of the dangers associated” with the pump, the suit alleges.
The jury issued its verdict earlier this month. Of the almost $10 million Estrada was awarded, $7 million was punitive damages.
Hospira said in a statement that it “will appeal this decision and aggressively defend the company against these claims, which we continue to assert are fully without merit.”
“Hospira strongly disagrees with the court's ruling and the plaintiff's attorney's characterization of the facts in this case,” the company said
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...93/jury-slams-hospira-with-10-million-verdict
Jury slams Hospira with $10 million verdict
.
A Lake County jury awarded almost $10 million to a former Hospira employee, finding that the company fired him because he raised concerns that it covered up quality and safety issues with a product.
Hospira said it will appeal and that it maintains that the allegations are “fully without merit.”
The former employee, Angel Estrada, was a vice president of quality systems and compliance for the Lake Forest-based pharmaceutical company from September 2010 to September 2011, when the company fired him, according to a lawsuit filed in Lake County Circuit Court.
Estrada raised concerns to supervisors that Hospira was not addressing issues in one of its medical pumps that a hospital in Spain reported to the company. The hospital reported that air bubbles had occurred in the device when used on children, which can cause fatalities, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that Estrada reached out to his superiors, including Hospira CEO Michael Ball, to address the reported issues and notify the FDA and European regulators of the pump's alleged defects.
The lawsuit alleges that on the same day Estrada sent Ball a report, two employees under Estrada were fired “purportedly for altering a record during the course of an audit.” Hospira fired Estrada “under the pretext of not properly investigating” one of the employee's conduct during the audit, the lawsuit says.
The real reason he was fired “was to quash his reporting of the dangers associated” with the pump, the suit alleges.
The jury issued its verdict earlier this month. Of the almost $10 million Estrada was awarded, $7 million was punitive damages.
Hospira said in a statement that it “will appeal this decision and aggressively defend the company against these claims, which we continue to assert are fully without merit.”
“Hospira strongly disagrees with the court's ruling and the plaintiff's attorney's characterization of the facts in this case,” the company said