Dr. Rost provides services as a pharmaceutical marketing expert witness. For more info see: Drug Expert Witness. Dr. Peter Rost email. Copyright © 2006-2013 InSync Communication. All rights reserved. Terms of use agreement, privacy policy and the computer fraud and abuse act.


Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing services as a medical device and drug expert witness and pharmaceutical marketing expert. Judge Sanders: "The court agrees with defendants' view that Dr. Rost is a very adept and seasoned expert witness." He is also the author of Emergency Surgery, The Whistleblower and Killer Drug. You can reach him on rostpeter (insert symbol) Please read the terms of use agreement and privacy policy for this blog carefully.

Letter From The Three Stooges

I know I have many readers from big, fancy law firms. You can find a list of some of them here.

And I feel bad because I haven't given them much fun lately. So I thought it might be time for a legal post, to correct that.

First, let me say that, seriously, I have a lot of respect for Pfizer's law firm Epstein, Becker and Green. They are the ones defending Pfizer against my wrongful termination lawsuit.

So, of course, when it was time for Pfizer to reply to our written interrogatories, (simply means my lawyer asks them questions which they have to respond to), which is part of the discovery process, before trial, I couldn't wait to read EBG's responses. After months of delay and legal wrangling the responses finally came.

And then, I realized why it had taken them so long to respond.

They had hired the Three Stooges to write the responses.


Because it surely couldn't have been the famous EBG lawyers who wrote those responses.

But don't take my word for it, let's take a look at what the Three Stooges actually wrote. And let me give you some background on this.

Of course, no one who is a defendant at trial wants to be a defendant. So if there is any way to claim the defendant was simply an innocent bystander, of course this is what the defendant will claim.

So, of course, Pfizer's Chief Legal Officer, and Top Lawyer and General Counsel, Jeff Kindler, doesn't want to be a defendant, and so he will assert, if he can, that he had nothing to do with me or my termination. So this is what the Three Stooges wrote on his behalf, on EBG's stationary, and I think all the real lawyers will get a kick out of this:

"In the period from April 16, 2003 through December 1, 2005, Kindler played no role with regard to the hiring, job assignment, compensation or termination decision with respect to Rost, except in his capacity as the chief legal officer (General Counsel) for Pfizer."

OK, I added the italics.

What he is saying is very simple.

It's like me saying that I had no role in the marketing of Genotropin except in my capacity as Vice President of Endocrine Care.

Or perhaps, I could also say, I had no role in making my children, except in my capacity as their father.

I don't know if you think it is funny, but I do.

And if you had the opportunity to continue to read Pfizer's entire response you'd be howling on the floor in laughter. Virtually every second question we've asked is so "vague and ambigious" and "overbroad and unduly burdensome" that it makes it soooooooooooooo hard for Pfizer or their smart lawyers to reply to them. They just can't. They are exhausted by the burden.

I wonder if that's the reason so many brilliant people go to lawyer school. I mean, imagine going to a school where, if you don't like the question, you simply reply it is too "vague and ambigious" and "overbroad and unduly burdensome." And you get a passing grade! No wonder smart people love law school.

And Jeff Kindler is not the only one who claims he had very little to do with me. So does Pfizer's CEO Hank McKinnell. Let's see what he writes.

"In the period from April 16, 2003 through December 1, 2005, although McKinnell was informed on occasion about events involving Rost during his employment with Pfizer, he played no role with regard to the hiring, job assignment, compensation or termination decisions with respect to Rost." (My italics)

So let's look at this statement more carefully.

Anyone who has ever worked for a company knows that if you march into the CEO, especially the most powerful CEO in the entire drug industry, and you informed him about events involving a certain employee, you look at his face and you listen.

If he smiles after you have informed him, you are happy, if he frowns and shakes his head, you run out of the office and change your plans.

The only way you can avoid being influenced by this powerful CEO, is if he is sitting in front of you with a brown bag over his head.

And I expect that when we go to trial, Pfizer will indeed pull out the brown bag which McKinnell is using when he is not influencing decisions. I can't wait to see that brown bag.

So who was responsible for firing me, according to Pfizer?

I mean there has to have been someone who made that decision, right?

How about the person who signed my termination letter, could it be her?

This is what the Three Stoges writes about the person who signed that letter:

"Sainpy remained ultimately responsible for Rost's employment status and compensation, insasmuch as he was considered to be assigned to her department, but the actual decisions relating to Rost's employment were delegated to other persons."

So there you have it, not even the person who signed my termination letter was responsible. I just happened to be in her department.

We have some mysterious "other people" making that decision.

And of course, we've tried to find out who they are.

We asked Pfizer to identify the decision makers for my personnel status and compensation. In their reply to that question the Stoges write, among other things, all of them non-responsive, "Pfizer cannot determine plaintiff's intended meaning."

I would believe them if the Three Stoges had signed the letter.

But it wasn't them.

I found the names of the famous lawyers,
Ronald M. Green
Michael A. Kalish
John Houston Pope

And I know they aren't the Three Stoges. After all, FOX News anchor Bill O'Reilly, who hired Ron Green to defend himself against the sexual harassment lawsuit he later settled, would not hire one of the Three Stoges.

But what do I know.

Maybe Ron Green and his team is trying to get an offer from Saturday Night Live, based on this hilarious performance.

Oh, one more thing. Read my legal disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer, just a regular bloke applying common sense to what lawyers write. Maybe that's the problem. Common sense does not apply to lawyers.


Blogger insider said...


I once spoke to a Big Pharma lawyer about an issue and asked "What does your conscience tell you to do?"

His (true) reply:

"Sorry, that was removed as part of my terms and conditions of employment!"

All the best

Blogger MsMelody said...


Loved the post . . . and I'd say 'welcome to the world of legalese,' but I expect you are already quite conversant in that world.

Isn't it amazing how legal "intelligence" waxes and wanes. Several years ago, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk was hauled to court for the devastating results attributable to their rDNA insulin, and a resulting class action suit. At the time, I got the following message from an interested onlooker:

It appears that both Lilly and Novo have defaulted in the class action. This Default Judgment has been entered in the Federal District Court for New Mexico and is now public record and under review by the judges and counsel for Lilly and Novo. Plaintiffs have withdrawn this judgement based on the late appearance of both Lilly and Novo. Lilly and Novo are fighting tooth and nail to prevent certification of the class and further progress.

The judgment, which resulted in massive cheers from the peanut gallery is partially reproduced below. Interestingly, Lilly's lawyers were not present when the case initially came before the court. But they certainly had the intelligence and money (power) to appear en masse to have the judgment set aside. Unfortunately, it WAS set aside on a technicality . . . service of process was incorrectly handled. At which time, plaintiff's lawyer was inundated with "more important work" at the firm where she was the new kid on the block. The case was never refiled.



vs. NO. CIV 00 0459 BB/LFG




THIS MATTER having come before this Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion For Default Judgment against Defendant Eli Lilly and Company and the Court being fully apprised of the premises therefrom and having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ brief and Praecipe, Defendant Eli Lilly and Company having filed no Answer or otherwise appeared, finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion For Default Judgment is well-taken and should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Motion For Default Judgment, this Court orders and directs that judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Eli Lilly and Company on liability. Judgment on damages shall be entered as follows:
1. Judgment is hereby entered against Eli Lilly and Company, on behalf of the Plaintiff class for One Billion, Three Hundred Thirty Three Million Dollars ($1,333,000,000.00).
2. Three Hundred Thirty Three Million ($333,000,000.00) shall be set aside in a trust for the sole purpose of developing a domestic source for beef, pork and beef-pork insulins. The FDA approved animal formulae will be released from Eli Lilly and Company and an open bidding process for drug manufacturers shall be implemented. Bids shall be received from drug manufacturers for the purpose of undertaking the production and marketing of animal insulins in the United States.
3. Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) shall be set aside in trust for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiffs at their option, to purchase Eli Lilly and Company voting stock. This will facilitate a distribution to new shareholders who will potentially have at their disposal, an action for a derivative shareholder suit to prevent Eli Lilly and Company from implementing decisions which would have a detrimental effect on the shareholders’ interest of Eli Lilly and Company.
4. Twenty Million ($20,000,000.00) shall be set aside for the sole purpose of purchasing beef, pork and beef-pork insulins from CP Pharmaceuticals in Great Britain to enable the Plaintiff class to immediately obtain the full range of animal insulins as their individual preference or tolerance dictates. The animal insulins imported from Great Britain shall immediately be distributed to each Plaintiff according to his or her individual application to the Magistrate or Special Master for such product.
5. Out of the remainder, an amount for each Plaintiff will be determined by the Magistrate appointed to this case or a Special Master as provided for under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 53 (1999), appointed for solely the purpose of administrating and supervising the distribution of judgment awards in this class action. Each Plaintiff’s award shall be based upon his or her injuries as a result of injecting synthetic human-based insulins produced by Eli Lilly and Company, as well as additional criteria to be set by the Magistrate or Special Master. The amount of award determined for each Plaintiff by the Magistrate or Special Master shall include an amount for punitive damages levied against Eli Lilly and Company for its intentional, reckless and malicious conduct related to Humulin®, Humalog® and their removal of animal insulins from the market.
6. Attorneys’ fees as provided by The Roehl Law Firm, P.C.’s fee agreement signed by each Plaintiff.
7. Attorneys’ costs to date.
8. Costs in an amount to be determined by the Magistrate or Special Master, held in trust solely for the purpose of publishing a national Judgment Notice in publications to be approved by this Court and for facilitating the timely settlement of this action on behalf of each Plaintiff.
9. An injunction preventing Eli Lilly and Company from petitioning the FDA as to the safety or otherwise appropriateness of reintroducing animal insulins on the U.S. market.
10. An injunction requiring the transfer of Eli Lilly and Company’s marketing authorization for animal insulins to the drug manufacturer awarded production rights via the bidding process outlined in paragraph No. 2.
11. An Order requiring Eli Lilly and Company to publicly release its records, cover to cover of the clinical trials conducted on Humulin® and Humalog® prior to its introduction into the national market, including but not limited to: the name and medical records of all gene donor(s); the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the clinical trial participants; all medical personnel who participated in logging clinical trial results; and all personnel who were paid by Eli Lilly and Company, on the payroll of Eli Lilly and Company, or given anything of value by Eli Lilly and Company to facilitate the approval of the two drugs by the FDA and their subsequent release into the market.
12. A public acknowledgement published in every diabetic periodical, the New England Journal of Medicine and Lilly’s own website by Eli Lilly and Company setting forth in detail, the full spectrum of adverse effects which may result from injecting Humulin® and Humalog®.
13. An injunction requiring a study of large scale randomized clinical trials comparing “human” insulins with beef and pork insulins, funded by Eli Lilly and Company and awarded to the medical facility designated by this Court.
14. An injunction requiring that a criminal investigation be immediately undertaken to investigate Eli Lilly and Company’s relationship, payments to, reports to, and communications with the American Diabetes Association and the Federal Drug Administration which in any way, relate to Lilly’s development, production and marketing of Humulin® and Humalog®, either in the United States or through Lilly’s foreign subsidiaries.
15. All other additional relief as deemed proper by this Court.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Love it, love it, love it.

Too funny!

Doc you Rock!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home