Opinion ID: 857137
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Pfizer's Motion for New Trial Based on

Text: Purportedly New Evidence Regarding the Cochrane Review of Neuropathic Pain There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of defendants' March 22, 2011 motion for new trial. At trial, Pfizer had presented expert testimony that Neurontin was effective for the broad treatment of neuropathic pain, which relied in part on a 2005 review by the Cochrane Collaboration, an independent organization, that concluded that adequate evidence supported Neurontin's efficacy for neuropathic pain. Kaiser Findings, 2011 WL 3852254, at . The district court discounted this testimony because the 2005 Cochrane Review was based on incomplete information, given defendants' suppression of negative information about Neurontin's efficacy for the broad treatment of neuropathic pain. Id. at -43. -63- In 2011, the Cochrane Collaboration published another review of the effects of gabapentin in treating chronic neuropathic pain. This revised review was updated with the inclusion of unpublished information made available through litigation and concluded that [g]abapentin provides pain relief of a high level in about a third of people who take [it] for painful neuropathic pain. The district court denied defendants' motion for a new trial, explaining that a credible meta-analysis from the Cochrane Collaboration based on the entirety of the scientific evidence concerning Neurontin's use in treating broad neuropathic pain was unavailable to defendants at the time of trial only because Pfizer itself did not provide the Cochrane Group with all available studies prior to the trial because it fraudulently suppressed these studies. That reason was sufficient.