Victory bittersweet for drug liability case victim

Wyeth complains about medical consumers "second guessing" professionals. This unlikely bid for sympathy is built on a grain of truth. It really IS a big problem that we medical consumers are reduced to second guessing so often.

But that cannot shield Wyeth from liability. I only wish I could tell from this article whether the reasoning finally relied on to establish their liability was plausible.

This is the big problem with this article: I cannot tell if it was plausible. The article has mentioned a few possibly relevant points, but omitted far too much.

Why, for example, is the drug manufacturer being held liable, but no liability is mentioned for the medical service provider who punctured her artery? Based on what little is reported in this article, I would say that that provider should bear if not all the liability, at least most of it.

But the article says absolutely nothing about this, as if we were supposed to take it for granted that the drug company should pay, simply because it has "deep pockets".

Justice has been done. I'm very glad for Diana Levine.