The ruling, which was returned in a case filed by the family of Cheryl Foust, came only days after a different Philadelphia jury awarded nearly $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages in another breast cancer lawsuit over Prempro.

This is the fourth victory for the drug makers out of 11 cases that have gone to trial so far. However, there are an estimated 9,000 cases still pending, and many of the losses have involved substantial punitive damage awards designed to punish the drug makers for hiding the risk of breast cancer associated with Prempro.

Prempro is a hormone replacement therapy (HRT) that contains a combination of the drugs Provera and Premarin. The drug was originally developed by Wyeth, which was acquired by Pfizer last year. HRTs use hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the hormone replacement therapy breast cancer lawsuits currently pending throughout the country. All of the cases involve similar allegations that the drug maker was aware of the risk and kept it from doctors, causing plaintiffs to develop breast cancer.

Foust died in 2005 at the age of 56 from breast cancer. She had taken Prempro for about four years before being diagnosed with the disease in 2003. Although the jury held that Wyeth failed to adequately warn Foust’s prescriber about the risk of Prempro side effects and that the failure to warn was a factor in the decision to prescribe the medication, the jurors determined that it was not proven that Foust’s breast cancer was caused by Prempro.

The verdict, which is the fifth Prempro lawsuit loss in a row for Wyeth, included $3.45 million in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages awarded to punish the company for their conduct. In the case, Audrey Singleton alleged that Wyeth knew about the risk of breast cancer from Prempro and failed to warn the public about the risk of the drug. According to a report by Bloomberg News, the jury took only minutes to determine that Pfizer, which bought Wyeth last year, should be penalized for the drug maker’s conduct.

Late last year, Pfizer was ordered to pay punitive damages over Prempro by two other Philadelphia juries who found that Wyeth purposefully hid Prempro’s breast cancer risk. Overall, Wyeth has lost seven of the last 10 lawsuits over the hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

Hormone replacement therapy involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the hormone replacement therapy breast cancer lawsuits currently pending throughout the country.

There are an estimated 9,000 Prempro lawsuits pending against Wyeth and Pfizer. All of the lawsuits include similar allegations that the drug company’s failure to warn consumers and the medical community about the risk of Prempro side effects caused them to develop invasive breast cancer.

The study, conducted by French and Mexican researchers, was published in the latest issue of the medical journal Thorax on February 8. The study represents over a decade of research on more than 57,000 women. While both estrogen-only and combination HRTs were found to increase asthma risk, researchers said the only significant increase was that associated with estrogen-only pills.

Hormone replacement therapy involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

Researchers studied 57,664 French women to look at the use of HRT and asthma symptom onset every two years between 1990 and 2002. The researchers found that HRT use in general increased the risk of asthma by 21%. However, the use of estrogen-only HRT pills more than doubled that risk, increasing the likelihood of postmenopausal women developing asthma by 54%. Estrogen-pill users who had never smoked or had some other allergy before being diagnosed with asthma faced the highest risks; 80% and 86% higher than other women, respectively.

Some researchers involved with the project suggested that the results could be linked to an airway inflammation caused by female hormones. They also said that the results should be weighed with both the other risks and benefits of HRT.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked a large number of the hormone replacement therapy breast cancer lawsuits currently pending throughout the country.

There are currently about 9,000 lawsuits against Prempro, one of the leading HRTs in the U.S.. The drug was originally distributed by Wyeth, which was acquired by Pfizer last year. All of the lawsuits claim that inadequate warnings were provided about the risk of invasive breast cancer from the HRT drugs and that the drug makers intentionally hid the cancer risk from women.

In October 2009, a Philadelphia jury awarded Connie Barton $3.7 million in compensatory damages and another $75 million in punitive damages after finding that Wyeth hid the risk of breast cancer from Prempro.

In an order issued by Judge Norman Ackerman of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, the punitive damages award was reduced to $5.62 million. However, the compensatory damage award was left intact and Judge Ackerman added another $1.25 million in interest to the award, bringing the total Prempro verdict to $10.5 million.

Barton’s case is one of about 9,000 Prempro lawsuits pending against Pfizer’s Wyeth subsidiary. All of the lawsuits involve similar allegations that the drug maker failed to adequately warn about the risk of invasive breast cancer from hormone replacement therapies, and intentionally hid the cancer risk from women.

Hormone replacement therapy involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the breast cancer lawsuits currently against the company.

The ruling was issued earlier this week by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, delivering the latest of a string of legal blows to Pfizer over its Prempro hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drug. The appeals court ruled that a district court in 2008 never had the authority to dismiss the lawsuits, because they belonged in state court instead of federal court. The appeals court also reversed the dismissal of a number of cases that were originally dismissed because they duplicated lawsuits pending in California.

Late last year, Pfizer was hit with a combined $103 million in punitive damages over Prempro by two Philadelphia juries who found that their Wyeth subsidiary purposefully hid Prempro’s breast cancer risk.

Hormone replacement therapy involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the hormone replacement therapy breast cancer lawsuits currently pending throughout the country.

The plaintiffs in the reinstated cases allege that the district court ruling in 2008 did not provide them with a reasonable opportunity to have their cases heard, and said that the judge abused his authority by not allowing the cases to be stayed until the results of the California lawsuits.

There are currently about 9,000 Prempro lawsuits pending against Pfizer. All of the lawsuits claim that inadequate warnings were provided about the risk of invasive breast cancer from the HRT drugs and that the drug makers intentionally hid the cancer risk from women.

New hormone replacement breast cancer lawsuits continue to be filed on behalf women. On December 29, the family of Delores Ann Spann Whatley filed suit in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that HRT drugs from Wyeth, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn Co. and Watson Pharmaceuticals caused her death. Whatley’s family say that the defendants acted with malice and reckless disregard, and are seeking punitive damages on top of compensatory damages. The case was originally filed in November in the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, but was removed and refiled in Tyler Division weeks later.

The ruling, issued December 14 by New York State Supreme Court Judge Martin Shulman, granted a motion made by attorneys for Pfizer to dismiss the 23 lawsuits brought by women who alleged problems with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drugs Prempro, Premarin and Provera. The drugs were developed by Wyeth, which was recently acquired by Pfizer. Teva Pharmaceuticals was also a defendant in the cases.

Hormone replacement therapy involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the hormone replacement therapy breast cancer lawsuits currently pending throughout the country.

In an order issued earlier this week, Judge Shulman said that the debate over HRT health problems has not yet been settled, but noted that “the potential risk of contracting breast cancer from taking HRT medication was well known at all times out there in the stream of public information.” Shulman determined that the evidence presented by plaintiffs did not contain evidence of fraud or misrepresentation which would have allowed the filings to go forward despite being filed after the state’s three year statute of limitations.

There are currently about 9,000 Prempro lawsuits pending against Pfizer’s Wyeth subsidiary. All of the lawsuits claim that the company failed to adequately warn about the risk of invasive breast cancer from the HRT drugs and that they intentionally hid the cancer risk from women. As a result of Wyeth’s conduct, Pfizer has been hit with several large punitive damage awards.

In two Prempro lawsuits that went to trial in recent months in Philadelphia, juries awarded a combined $103 million in punitive damages to two women who established that Wyeth purposefully hid the risks of breast cancer.

In November, a federal appeals court in St. Louis determined that Wyeth’s actions at attempting to downplay cancer concerns was enough to be presented to a jury as evidence of the need of punitive damages in a case that has already resulted in compensatory damages of $3.75 million.

A New York Times investigation involving recently released documents, discovered a number of instances which appear to show that the drug maker intentionally worked to downplay known cancer risks in the medical community. The newspaper highlighted uncovered documents by Wyeth employees. In one case an employee wrote “Dismiss/distract” on a report about breast cancer risks and HRT.

The New York Times investigation also raises questions about whether the drug manufacturers falsely pumped up the health benefits of HRT to increase sales.

Pfizer has released statements in the wake of the Times piece calling it unfair, saying reporters cherry-picked data. The company also noted that the HRT drugs have long carried label warnings regarding the risk of breast cancer.

The two Prempro trials overlapped, with the Kendall case starting as a case filed by Connie Barton was concluding. Following the jury deliberations in the Barton case, the Court sealed the amount of the punitive damage award to avoid any influence over the jury in the Kendall case, which was ongoing in the same courthouse.

In the Barton case, the jury awarded $6.3 million in compensatory damages for past and future medical expenses, as well as pain and suffering caused by breast cancer she developed after using hormone replacement therapy for 5 years to treat menopause symptoms. The additional $75 million in punitive damages were awarded after the jury found that Wyeth, which was recently acquired by Pfizer, purposefully hid the risk of breast cancer from Prempro.

In the Kendall case, a seperate jury awarded $3.7 million in compensatory and $28 million in punitive damages. In that lawsuit, Kendal alleged that she required a double mastectomy to treat breast cancer she developed from using the combination of Prempro and Provera hormone replacement therapy for 11 years.

Hormone replacement therapy involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the breast cancer lawsuits currently against the company.

Barton and Kendall’s cases are just two of about 9,000 Prempro lawsuits pending against Pfizer’s Wyeth subsidiary. All of the lawsuits claim that the company failed to adequately warn about the risk of invasive breast cancer from hormone replacement therapies, and intentionally hid the cancer risk from women.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court vacated a $27 million punitive damage award issued in a Prempro lawsuit decided last year. However, that case will be scheduled for a new trial to reassess whether the manufacturer is liable for punitive damages, and it is possible that the second jury could award more than $27 million.

According to a report by Bloomberg News, at least two other Prempro punitive damage awards have been returned by juries since the first trials began in 2007.

The case was the second Prempro trial to result in a multi-million dollar compensatory damage award in recent months. The case involves a claim for Donna Kendall, 66, who had a double mastectomy in 2002 to treat breast cancer from Prempro and Provera combination therapy, which she took for 11 years.

In October, another Philadelphia jury decided a similar case filed by Connie Barton, 64, who was diagnosed with breast cancer after taking the hormone replacement therapy for five years to treat menopause symptoms. In the first phase of that trial, the jury awarded Barton $3.7 million in compensatory damages and subsequently awarded punitive damages after determining that Wyeth, which was recently acquired by Pfizer, purposefully hid the risk of breast cancer. The amount of that punitive damage award was immediately sealed to avoid influence on the jury in the Kendall trial, which was already underway in the same court.

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the 9,000 Prempro lawsuits currently pending.

In one lawsuit pending in Florida, Wyeth faces the risk of having millions of documents made public that it is fighting to keep secret. Under Florida’s “sunshine” laws, which allow the public unprecedented access to government records, the court may not keep secret any documents that might concern a public hazard.

The attorneys pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of Loretta Esposito have refused to sign a confidentiality order that Wyeth wants to require before giving them access to 16 million discovery documents. Other attorneys in Prempro cases in other states have had to sign the agreement to get access to the documents; however, according to a report in the St. Petersburg Times, Florida’s sunshine laws may make the records open to the public for the first time.

A hearing is scheduled to day in Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court to see if the Florida law will allow the attorneys to access the records without the confidentiality agreement.

The ruling, issued on Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis, involves a case brought by Donna Scroggin against Wyeth, which was acquired recently by Pfizer. The Prempro breast cancer lawsuit alleged that the drug maker ignored and downplayed the risk of side effects associated with menopause drugs.

In March 2008, a federal jury awarded Scroggin $2.7 million as compensation for her actual damages, including medical expenses and pain and suffering. After hearing evidence involving Wyeth’s actions during the punitive damages phase of the trial, the jury awarded an additional $27 million as punishment for the reckless disregard for the risk of injury to consumers.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the compensatory damages award and agreed that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to warrant submitting the question of punitive damages to the jury. However, as a result of procedural problems with some of the evidence presented during the punitive damages phase, the appeals court ordered that the $27 million portion of the award must be tossed, and ordered a new trial on whether the drug maker should be required to pay punitive damages and the amount of any such award.

The decision comes just one week after a different jury awarded punitive damages in another breast cancer lawsuit over Prempro. A Philadelphia jury awarded Connie Barton, 64, $3.7 million in compensation for her breast cancer caused by Prempro, and ordered Wyeth to pay an undisclosed amount in punitive damages. Wyeth was successfully able to convince the court to keep the punitive damages amount sealed until another ongoing Prempro trial in the same courthouse is finished, to avoid influencing the jury.

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

Scroggin and Barton both alleged that Wyeth failed to adequately warn about the risk of invasive breast cancer from hormone replacement therapies, and intentionally hid the cancer risk from women. There are about 9,000 lawsuits pending against Pfizer’s Wyeth unit by other women making similar claims.

The verdict came in a Prempro lawsuit filed on behalf of 64-year old Connie Barton, who was diagnosed with breast cancer after taking the drug for five years to treat menopause symptoms. In the first phase of the trial, the jury found that Barton’s breast cancer was caused by side effects of Prempro and determined that she should be awarded $3.7 million in damages.

In the second phase of the trial, the jury considered whether Wyeth was responsible for those damages and whether their conduct was so bad that punitive damages should be awarded as punishment. According to Bloomberg News, the jury only deliberated for 25 minutes before ordering Wyeth to pay the compensatory damages of $3.7 million and a punitive damages award that was immediately sealed by the court.

Barton’s case is one of about 9,000 Prempro lawsuits pending against Wyeth that allege the company failed to adequately warn about the risk of invasive breast cancer from hormone replacement therapies, and intentionally hid the cancer risk from women.

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) involves the use of hormones and progestins to artificially boost hormone levels in women undergoing menopause due to surgery or in postmenopausal women, to provide relief from symptoms such as hot flashes, irregular menstruation or weight gain.

In 2002 the National Institutes of Health released the results of studies that found that women receiving HRT were at higher risk of breast cancer, strokes and heart attacks. The studies, part of the Women’s Health Initiative, sparked most of the breast cancer lawsuits currently against the company.

Wyeth’s Prempro and its other major HRT drug, Premarin, have been used by at least 6 million women worldwide. Last year, Prempro generated more than $1 billion in sales.