A class action lawsuit was filed against PFIZER for RIMADYL deaths in October of 1999.  That lawsuit was settled nearly FIVE [5] YEARS later  and without Pfizer admitting ANY liability (see: Press Release after lawsuit pleadings).  A true and correct copy of that original lawsuit with Pfizer's answers/responses and affirmative defenses, blended/retyped for each count in red for readability, follows:

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST MAKERS OF RIMADYL
Case No. 99-CP-25-353
 HAMPTON COUNTY              
                                               IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA    

JEAN TOWNSEND on behalf of                             Case No. 99-CP-25-353
herself and all others similarly situated
            Summons in a Civil Case  
Jury Trial Demanded
                Plaintiff,    
V.                                  
  
                                    
Pfizer Incorporated,            
235 East 42nd Street            
New York, New York 10017
                                    
 Defendant
____________________________________

 TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED:
        YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action of which a copy is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer on the subscriber at his office, Post Office Box 685, Hampton, South Carolina, 29924, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service; and if you fail to answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid, the Plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
                           SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN
                          Marion C. Fairey
                           Amanda G. Steinmeyer
                           Robert N. Hill
                             200 Jackson Avenue East
                             Post Office Box 685
                             Hampton, SC 29924
                             (803) 943-4444
                                                                               
 Toll free number 1-800-348-3805

                           By:_ _____________________
                            ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
 October 12, 1999
Hampton, South Carolina
IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                                            IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
 COUNTY OF HAMPTON
                               
JEAN TOWNSEND on behalf of                     Case No. _99-CP-25-353______
herself and all others similarly situated    
                                                   Class Action Complaint
                                Plaintiff,    
V.                                           Jury Trial Demanded
                                       
Pfizer Incorporated,                        
                                        
235 East 42nd Street                    
New York, New York 10017-5755        
                                        
                Defendant.                
__________________________________

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT AND YOUR ATTORNEYS:

YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE Plaintiff, Jean Townsend, brings this action on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated as a voluntary class action under Rule 23 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and alleges:
 
PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff, Jean Townsend, is a resident of the State of South Carolina.
[A]    1.    Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. The above-named defendant, Pfizer Incorporated, (hereinafter "Pfizer") is a foreign corporation, company or other business entity which has been and/or is now engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and/or distributing an animal drug called Rimadyl™.
[A]    2.    Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that it is a foreign corporation which has been and/or is now engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Rimadyl™, a veterinary product.  The remaining allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint are denied.

3. The class of plaintiffs consists of and includes all persons, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or injury as a result of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl™ with the exception of those identified in paragraph 4 of this Complaint.
[A]    3.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff purports to name as a class "all persons, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death as a result of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl™."  Pfizer denies that Plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit as a class action under the facts and law applicable to this case.

4. The class does not include (1) the defendant; and (2) any active Magistrate Judge for the State of South Carolina, any Judge of the South Carolina Circuit Court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court.
[A]    4.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff does not include "(1) the defendant, and (2) any active Magistrate Judge for the State of South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court."  Pfizer denies that Plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit as a class action under the facts and law applicable to this case.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides within the State of South Carolina, owns property within the State of South Carolina and has suffered property damage within the State of South Carolina.
[A]    5.    Pfizer lacks information of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore, those allegations are denied.  Further responding, Pfizer denies that Plaintiff has suffered property damage in South Carolina for which Pfizer is liable to Plaintiff.

6. The Defendant has used the ports of South Carolina or the roads and other means of transportation in the State of South Carolina to transport their products, including Rimadyl™, into the State of South Carolina where they sold and/or distributed their products to South Carolina residents or entities in South Carolina.
[A]    6.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, except admits that it has conducted business in South Carolina, including the sale of Rimadyl™.

7. The Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this court in that Defendant transacted and continues to transact business in this state, has committed and continues to commit tortuous acts in whole or in part in this state, and/or has produced, manufactured or distributed goods with the reasonable expectation that those goods would be used in this state and the goods were used in this state.
[A]    7.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, except admits that it has conducted business in South Carolina.

8. The Defendant has caused or will cause, and all class members have suffered or will suffer, property damage as a result of the acts or omissions of this defendant.
[A]    8.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9. The amount in controversy exceeds one hundred ($100.00) dollars for each member of the class, and some class members have suffered and will suffer less than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) in damages.
[A]    9.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

10. Venue of this action is governed by S. C. Code Anno. §15-7-30 (1998) and is appropriate as designated by the Plaintiff in this Complaint because the Defendant is a foreign corporation that does not reside in any county in South Carolina and does not maintain a registered agent within South Carolina.
[A]    10.    Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that it is a foreign corporation and specifically admits that it does not reside in Hampton County, South Carolina and that it does not maintain a registered agent within South Carolina.  In further responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Pfizer denies that venue is proper in Hampton County.  In further responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Pfizer states that it resides in Richland County, South Carolina for venue purposes, as set forth in its Motion to Transfer Venue filed herewith.  The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are denied, except insofar as Plaintiff pleads legal conclusion regarding the applicability of S.C.Code Ann §15-7-30 (1998) to which no responsive pleading is required.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

11. The class of plaintiffs consists of and includes all persons, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or injury as a result of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl™ with the exception of those identified in paragraph 4 of this Complaint.
[A]    11.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff purports to name as a class "all persons, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or injury as a result of consuming or ingesting the veterinary drug Rimadyl™."  Pfizer denies that Plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit as a class action under the facts and law applicable to this case.

12. The class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, more than 1000 pets and animals have suffered injury or death as a direct and proximate result exposure to Rimadyl™.
[A]    12.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the class representative are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other class members and plaintiff is represented by experienced and able counsel who have previously litigated class actions and similar types of cases.
[A]    13.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, except that is lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the ability and experience of Plaintiff's counsel.

14. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. Common questions of law include the liability of defendant for manufacturing, producing, selling and/or distributing Rimadyl™. Common questions of fact include, but are not limited to, the available scientific and technical knowledge when Rimadyl™ was manufactured and sold; the Defendant's knowledge or reason to know of the health hazards or adverse side effects of Rimadyl™; the Defendant's failure to test or adequately test Rimadyl™ prior to marketing the drug; and the Defendant's failure to warn class members of such hazards.
[A]    14.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

15. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the class members' claims and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts in that the Defendant's Rimadyl™ was prescribed, ingested and caused harm to the Plaintiff's dog George. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated class members have suffered and will continue to suffer property damage as a result of the Defendant's actions.
[A]    15.    Plaintiff denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except that it is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Rimadyl™ was prescribed to and ingested by Plaintiff's dog George.

16. Upon information and belief, the named Plaintiff not only represents a large number of class members whose pets and animals have been harmed or killed, but also, due to the defendant's failure to adequately warn of the potential dangers of Rimadyl™, Plaintiff represents an even larger number of class members who have yet to discover that their pets and animals have been or will be injured. For these reasons, a class action is especially appropriate to promote judicial efficiency and to protect class members' interests and rights.
[A]    16.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

17. Each class member has been or will be similarly injured by this defendant's acts and omissions in manufacturing, marketing, selling, designing, and/or supplying Rimadyl™.
[A]    17.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

18. Class treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the issues in dispute because it permits a large number of injured parties, joinder of whom is impracticable, to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously. In addition, it does not infringe upon the rights of those class members who wish to opt-out and litigate their claims separately. The class action provides an efficient method whereby the relative rights of the class members and defendant can be fairly managed.
[A]    18.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
 
19. The Plaintiff owned a pet chocolate brown Labrador Retriever named George.
[A]    19.    Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

20. Sometime during 1997, the Plaintiff's dog George showed signs of arthritis. After initial treatment that did not seem to help, the Plaintiff requested her vet to prescribe Rimadyl™. This request was made because the Plaintiff had read brochures in her Veterinarian's office and seen ads on television and in magazines touting Rimadyl™ as a "miracle" drug for canine arthritis.
[A]    20.    Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. In September of 1997, the Plaintiff began administering Rimadyl™ to George exactly as she had been directed to give it.
[A]    21.    Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

22. After taking Rimadyl™ for several weeks, a number of symptoms and health problems suddenly began to occur in George. These symptoms included, but were not limited to, loss of appetite, vomiting, diarrhea and bloody stool.
[A]    22.    Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.

23. The Defendant was notified of George's adverse reaction to Rimadyl™ on or about October 13, 1997.
[A]    23.    Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that in October of 1997. it learned of George's death.  All other allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint not specifically admitted are denied.
 
24. As a result of the symptoms described in this Complaint and others that were discovered during a Necropsy, it was clear that George was suffering to the point that he had to be euthenized.
[A]    24.    Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT

25. The Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, marketed and/or placed into the stream of commerce Rimadyl™ knowing that it would given to pets and animals.
[A]    25.    Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that it manufactured, marketed and sold Rimadyl™ knowing that it would be given to pets and animals.  Pfizer denies that it designed Rimadyl™ and is without information or knowledge sufficient to a belief as to the truth of the allegation that it "placed [Rimadyl™] into the stream of commerce." as that phrase is not adequately defined.
 
26. The Defendant has sought to suppress, conceal, misrepresent and/or obscure data on the adverse side effects of Rimadyl™.
[A]    26.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
 
27. The Defendant was aware or should have been aware of studies and data linking Rimadyl™ and its constituents with disease in animals, but nevertheless continued to design, produce, manufacture, market, distribute and/or sell Rimadyl™ without any warnings as to potential health hazards or detrimental side effects associated with Rimadyl™.
[A]    27.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28. Despite its actual knowledge of the detrimental side effects of Rimadyl™, the Defendant failed to warn or adequately and sufficiently warn the Plaintiff and other class members, the public, governmental bodies and the Veterinary and Medical community of the harmful and detrimental side effects of Rimadyl™.
[A]    28.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
 
29. The Defendant failed to test or adequately test Rimadyl™, prior to manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl™.
[A]    29.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
 
30. The Defendant published false and/or misleading information about the safety and potential adverse side effects of Rimadyl™.
[A]    30.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE

31. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
[A]    31.    Responding to Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein.

32. At all times material hereto, the Defendant was the designer, developer, manufacturer, marketer, deliverer and/or seller of Rimadyl™.
[A]    32.    Responding to Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that it manufactured, marketed and/or sold Rimadyl™.  Pfizer denies that it designed, developed or delivered Rimadyl™. 

33. At all times material hereto, the Defendant knew or should have known that Rimadyl™ would be used on pets and animals owned by the Plaintiff and class members.
[A]    33.    Pfizer admits that Rimadyl™ is a veterinary product, but except as specifically admitted herein, the allegations of Paragraph 33 are denied.
 
34. At all times material hereto, the Defendant designed, developed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or sold Rimadyl™ which the Defendant knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known was defective and would damage the Plaintiff's and class members' pets and animals.
[A]    34.    Pfizer admits that it manufactured, marketed and/or sold Rimadyl™, but denies that it designed, developed or distributed Rimadyl™.  Pfizer denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
   
35. Defendants failed to warn, or adequately or sufficiently warn, either directly or indirectly, the foreseeable users of the potential hazards and costs associated with the use of Rimadyl™
[A]    35.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

36. The Defendant failed to test or adequately test Rimadyl™.
[A]    36.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
 
37. The Defendant systematically failed to represent accurately to the Plaintiff and class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl™ and its constituents can pose a health hazard and injure pets and animals or that Rimadyl™ was defective.
[A]    37.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
 
38. The Defendant systematically failed to monitor and investigate reported instances of injury or death to pets and animals that resulted from the use of Rimadyl™.
[A]    38.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

39. The Defendant systematically failed to train, warn or educate, or inadequately trained, warned or educated the Plaintiff, class members or their Veterinarians of the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions to the use of Rimadyl™ in pets and animals or that animals on Rimadyl™ should be carefully observed for signs or symptoms of adverse reaction, even though it had a duty to do so.
[A]    39.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
 
40. The Defendant systematically failed to acknowledge responsibility for animal deaths and adverse side effects caused by Rimadyl™, thereby contributing to the false impression cultivated by the Defendant that Rimadyl™ is safe.
[A]    40.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.

41. The Defendant failed to represent accurately to Plaintiff and class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl™, used for its ordinary and intended purpose, can pose a health hazard and/or injure pets and animals, whereby class members were induced to purchase and utilize such products.
[A]    41.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
 
42. The Defendant at all times has failed and continues to fail to perform its duties to warn and recall.
[A]    42.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
 
43. The Defendant's actions, as alleged, constitute violations of statutory and regulatory provisions.
[A]    43.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

44. All Defendant's acts and omissions complained of in this count were committed by them with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff and other class members and were carried out to maximize the sale and use of Rimadyl™.
[A]    44.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
 
45. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer damage.
[A]    45.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

COUNT II: STRICT LIABILITY

46. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
[A]    46.    Responding to Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein.

47. The Defendant has been and is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl™.
[A]    47.    Pfizer admits that it manufactures, markets and/or sells Rimadyl™.

48. Rimadyl™, as used by the Plaintiff and class members was defective and unreasonably dangerous, unfit for its intended use because of the deleterious, highly harmful and deadly effects it causes to the Plaintiff's and other class members' pets and animals.
[A]    48.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
 
49. The Defendant reasonably expected Rimadyl™ to be used by animal owners such as the Plaintiff and other class members.
[A]    Pfizer admits that Rimadyl™ is a veterinary product, but except as specifically admitted herein, the allegations in Paragraph 49 are denied.

50. The Plaintiff and other class members used Rimadyl™ in the manner in which was intended and expected by the Defendant. At the time of such use, Rimadyl™ had not been changed from the time it was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold by the Defendant.
[A]    50.    Pfizer denies that it designed or distributed Rimadyl™ and otherwise lacks information or  knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.

51. As a direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff and class members using the Defendant's defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages to their pets and animals.
[A]    51.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

COUNT III: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES

52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
[A]    52.    Responding to Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein.

53. The Defendant failed to represent accurately to class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl™ is unfit and unsafe to pets and animals.
[A]    53.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
 
54. The Defendant intended that Rimadyl™ be used on pets and animals, and impliedly warranted through the sale, advertising, and/or marketing of Rimadyl™ that it was fit for these normal and foreseeable uses.
[A]    54.    Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that Rimadyl™ is a prescription veterinary product that is fit for use on pets and animals.  Pfizer denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.

55. The Plaintiff and class members, as foreseeable and intended users of Defendant's product, relied upon Defendant's representations, skill, expertise and judgment in assuming that Rimadyl™ would not only perform its basic functions as warranted, but was safe, and would not cause injury and death to pets and animals.
[A]    55.    Pfizer admits that Rimadyl™ is a prescriptive veterinary product intended for use on pets and animals that like any prescription product can have side effects in addition to its benefits.  Pfizer lacks specific information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint relating to the Plaintiff's and class members' alleged reliance.  The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint plead legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
 
56. The Defendant breached these implied warranties in that Rimadyl™ as designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold is toxic, deleterious, and highly harmful, and can and does injure and kill pets and animals.
[A]    56.    Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that it manufactured and marketed Rimadyl™, but denies that it designed or distributed  Rimadyl™ and denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
 
57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of implied warranties of good and merchantable quality and fitness for a particular purpose and for their intended use, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered and will continue to suffer direct and material harm and injury.
[A]    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.

COUNT IV: FRAUD

58. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
[A]    58.    Responding to Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein.

59. The Defendant at all times in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling Rimadyl™ knew that this product was and is hazardous and/or potentially hazardous to pets and animals, and knew that it causes disease, injury, and death.
[A]    59.    Pfizer admits that it manufactures, markets and/or sells Rimadyl™,  but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
 
60. At all times relevant in marketing their Rimadyl™, the Defendant falsely and fraudulently represented expressly or impliedly to plaintiff, class members, the public and the market that Rimadyl™ was safe. The Defendant suppressed and concealed facts that Rimadyl™ could be harmful, dangerous and deleterious to the health of pets and animals. The Defendant knew of these dangerous propensities when it designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Rimadyl™.
[A]    60.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint and specifically denies that it designed or distributes Rimadyl™.

61. The Defendant at all times had a continuing duty to disclose the dangerous propensities of their product to the Plaintiff, class members, the public, and the market, and the suppression of these facts constituted misleading and fraudulent misrepresentations because Defendant published and disseminated information such as "testimonials," "success stories" and " fluff articles" publically and in special interest publications which represented Rimadyl™ was well-suited, safe and highly effective for its intended use, and which were likely to mislead for want of communication of suppressed facts, including the hazardous nature and dangerous propensities of Rimadyl™
[A]    61.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
 
62. The misrepresentations, suppressions, and failures to disclose information were made by the Defendant with the intent to induce Plaintiff, class members, the public and the market to purchase and use Rimadyl™.
[A]    62.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
 
63. The Plaintiff and class members relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations as well as the absence of adverse information in purchasing and using Rimadyl™ on their pets and animals.
[A]    63.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
 
64. The Defendant has continued at all times relevant to falsely and fraudulently misrepresent, suppress, and fail to disclose the dangerous propensities of Rimadyl™, including the fact that Rimadyl™ has dangerous and deleterious effects on pets and animals.
[A]    64.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint.
 
65. The Plaintiff and class members, at the times these failures to disclose and suppressions of fact occurred, and at the time of purchase and use of the product, were ignorant of the existence of the facts which defendant misrepresented, suppressed and failed to disclose. If the Plaintiff and class members had been aware of the existence of the facts misrepresented or not disclosed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased or used Rimadyl™, and would have not suffered the damages and injuries alleged herein.
[A]    65.    Pfizer denies that it misrepresented any information regarding Rimadyl™,  and it is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint.

66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's suppression of facts and failure to disclose, and the continued manufacture, sale and marketing of Rimadyl™, the Plaintiff and class members were or will be directly and materially harmed and injured.
[A]    66.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.
 
67. All Defendant's acts and omissions complained of in this count were committed by them with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff and other class members and were intentionally carried out to maximize the sale and use of Rimadyl™.
[A]    67.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.
 
COUNT V: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

68. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
[A]    68.    Responding to Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 67 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein.

69. The Defendant has engaged in unlawful and deceptive trade practices that have injured the Plaintiff as described herein and upon information and belief, these unlawful and deceptive trade practices were committed willfully and knowingly by the Defendant.
[A]    69.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
 
70. The Defendant has engaged, or has had the potential to engage in similar unlawful and deceptive trade practices that either have or potentially could have injured other persons or entities.
[A]    70.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.

71. The Defendant's unlawful and deceptive trade practices committed during the operation of its business as described in this Count violated statutory law.
[A]    71.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint.

72. The unlawful and deceptive trade practices of the Defendant impact the public interest in that they are capable of repetition, and upon information and belief, have been repeated against other persons or entities as alleged in this Complaint.
[A]    72.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.

73. Because of the unlawful and deceptive trade practices of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to suffer damages.
[A]    73.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint.

74. The Defendant's willful and knowing commission of multiple unlawful unfair and deceptive acts in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl™, have caused injury to the Plaintiff and class members.
[A]    74.    Pfizer admits that it manufactures, markets and/or sells Rimadyl™,  but denies that it designed or distributes Rimadyl™.  Pfizer denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint.

COUNT VI: EXPRESS WARRANTY

75. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
[A]    75.    Responding to Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, Pfizer hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Answer, as if fully set forth herein.
 
76. At all times relevant, the Defendant, in order to induce the Plaintiff and class members to purchase and use Rimadyl™, warranted and represented that its product was safe for its intended use in dogs.
[A]    76.    Plaintiff admits that Rimadyl™ is safe for its intended use in dogs, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
 
77. The Plaintiff and other class members purchased and used Rimadyl™ on their pets and pets and animals in reliance on the Defendant's above- mentioned warranties and representations.
[A]    77.    Pfizer lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, except insofar as Plaintiff pleads legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
 
78. The Rimadyl™ distributed, sold and/or delivered by the Plaintiff and class members were not of a character as stated by the Defendant, but on the contrary, were defective and deficient.
[A]    78.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint.
 
79. The Defendant has received due and proper notice from the Plaintiff and other class members about the defective and deficient character in Rimadyl™, and the Plaintiff herein provides the Defendant with additional notice of the same.
[A]    79.    Responding to the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint, Pfizer admits that in October of 1997, it learned of George's death.  The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint are denied, except insofar as the Plaintiff pleads legal conclusions regarding notice to Pfizer to which no responsive pleading is required.
 
80. As a result of the defective and deficient nature of Rimadyl™, which is contrary to the warranties and representations of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to suffer damage to their pets and animals.
[A]    80.    Pfizer denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands a jury trial and prays that:
A. The Court certify a voluntary opt-out class under Rule 23 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure with specific appropriate common questions that address the liability of the Defendant as alleged herein on a class-wide basis;
B. The Plaintiff and other class members recover the general and special compensatory damages determined to have been sustained by each of them respectively;
C. The Plaintiff and other class members recover any attorneys fees, witness fees and other costs of this suit as may be appropriate;
D. The Court grant such other, further or different relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN
Marion C. Fairey, Jr.
Amanda G. Steinmeyer
Robert N. Hill

200 Jackson Avenue East
Post Office Box 685
Hampton, South Carolina 29924

(803) 943-4444

Toll free number 1-800-348-3805

By:

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Hampton, South Carolina
October 12, 1999.

**[PFIZER'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FOLLOW]**
 
FIRST DEFENSE:      81.    The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
 
SECOND DEFENSE:     82.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because the FDA has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over the matters asserted in the Complaint.
 
THIRD DEFENSE:    83.    Plaintiff's and or members of the purported class' alleged purchase of Rimadyl™ was pursuant to the prescription of a veterinarian based upon that veterinarian's professional advice, clinical judgment, and/or opinion that Rimadyl™ was an appropriate medication to treat the Plaintiffs' animal's condition.  Pfizer satisfied its duty to warn under the learned intermediary or "informed intermediary" doctrine and the claims asserted in the Complaint are therefore barred by this doctrine.
 
FOURTH DEFENSE:    84.    The claims asserted in the Complaint pursuant to a theory of strict liability are barred by the doctrine contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, Comment, and/or Restatement (Third) of Torts: :"Product Liability"  § 6.
 
FIFTH DEFENSE:    85.    The claims asserted in the Complaint pursuant to a theory of strict liability are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and or members of the purported class, by electing to provide Rimadyl™ to their animals, assumed the risks disclosed on the Rimadyl™ FDA-approved package insert, and Plaintiff and/or members of the purported class waived and/or are estopped from asserting any claim related to such risks in accordance with the principle of assumption of the risk and/or informed consent.
 
SIXTH DEFENSE:    86.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because the utility of Rimadyl™ outweighed its risk.
 
SEVENTH DEFENSE:    87.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because Rimadyl™ was designed, tested, manufactured, and labeled in accordance with the state-of-art and industry standards existing at the time of the sale.
 
EIGHTH DEFENSE:    88.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because the product was not unreasonably dangerous or defective, was suitable in the purpose for which it was intended, and was distributed with adequate and sufficient warnings.
 
NINTH DEFENSE:    89.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because they were caused by unforeseeable idiosyncratic reactions.
 
TENTH DEFENSE:     90.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because the Plaintiff and/or members of the purported class lack standing to bring them.
 
ELEVENTH DEFENSE:    91.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because Rimadyl™ is comprehensively regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq. and regulations promulgated thereunder.  Accordingly, the claims asserted in the Complaint are preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, clause 2, and the laws of the United States.
 
TWELFTH DEFENSE:    92.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by the misuse of Rimadyl™.
 
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE:    93.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of comparative and/or contributory negligence or fault.
 
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE:    94.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because the  injuries of the Plaintiff and or the members of the purported class, if any, were, in whole or in part, the result of conduct of the Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported class, independent third parties, or events that were extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, and/or independent of or far removed from Pfizer's conduct.
 
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE:    95.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations or statute of repose.
 
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE:    96.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by the failure to mitigate.
 
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE:    97.    The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support a claim for punative damages.
 
EIGTHTEENTH DEFENSE:    98.    Any of the claims asserted in the Complaint for punative damages are barred because any award of punative damages would violate Pfizer's rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, including, without limitation, the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Pfizer's rights under provisions of the South Carolina Constitution, and because South Carolina forbids the award of such damages for causes of action founded on strict liability or breech of warranty.
 
NINETEENTH DEFENSE:    99.    The Complaint should be dismissed due to improper venue.
 
TWENTIETH DEFENSE:    100.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported class, failed to notify Pfizer of any alleged breech of warranty within a reasonable time after Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported class discovered or should have discovered any alleged breech of warranty.
 
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE:    101.    The claims asserted in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and/or the members of the purported class are not in privity with Pfizer, and therefore, may not recover upon any alleged breech of any alleged warranty.
 
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE:    102.    The venue for this action in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Hampton County is improper.
 
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE:    103.    The action is not appropriate for class certification.
 
TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE:    104.    This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims on behalf of the putative class members who are not residents of South Carolina pursuant to S.C. Code. Ann. § 15-5-150 (1976).
 
TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE:    105.    Plaintiff's claims of fraud are barred, in whole or in part, because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 9(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that all arguments of fraud be pled with particularity.
 
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE:    106.    The claims asserted in the Complaint under South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practice Act ("UTPA") are barred, in whole or in part, because the asserted claims may not be brought as a class action under the UTPA.
 
    WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Complaint in its entirety, together with costs and disbursements.
 
DATED: November [30], 1999.   
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P.
by: [signature of Jane Thompson Davis]
Michael T. Cole
Jane Thompson Davis
Liberty Building, Suite 500
151 Meeting Street
Post Office Box 1806 (29404)
Charleston, SC  29401
(843) 853-5200 OF
 
COUNSEL:
KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER, LLP
    Steve Glickstein, Esq.
    425 park Avenue
    New York, New York 10022
    (212) 836-8000
    Attorneys for Defendant Pfizer Incorporated
    Charleston, South Carolina
 

 
PRESS RELEASE - The class action  PFIZER/RIMADYL LAWSUIT SETTLED  NOTE: this case was settled nearly five (5) years after its filing and without PFIZER admitting any liability.
 
LAWSUIT OVER VETERINARY DRUG SETTLED

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE –
Johns Island, South Carolina - August 18, 2004

Jean Townsend of Johns Island, South Carolina announced today that a settlement has been reached with Pfizer, Inc. in what appears to be the first lawsuit of its kind in this country – a lawsuit over injuries that led to the death of Ms. Townsend's chocolate lab, George.  
 
Ms. Townsend originally brought a class action lawsuit against Pfizer in October of 1999, two years after the tragic death of George.  The lawsuit alleged that after initial approval by the FDA, the drug Rimadyl®, which was the subject of an unprecedented multi-million dollar advertising campaign, was marketed without a complete understanding of the serious side-effects that could result from the drug.  Ms. Townsend also alleged that neither she nor her vet were adequately warned of the potential side-effects.  After administering the drug for only 14 days, George developed severe internal bleeding and ultimately liver failure.  George was euthanized on October 13, 1997.  In reaching the settlement, Pfizer has admitted no wrong-doing.
 
"It was truly horrible," said Townsend of the experience.  "But the most troubling aspect of the ordeal was when I later learned that similar side-effects had been reported to Pfizer and the FDA months before I first gave the drug to my dog.  Yet even after my pet became sick, I continued to give him the pills because they were supposed to make him feel better.  I had no idea that he was suffering from the side-effects of Rimadyl®.  It is devastating to live with the realization that I gave my beloved pet medicine to help him when, in fact, it was killing him."  After reporting George's death to Pfizer, Ms. Townsend was offered a $249.33 settlement, but the offer came with the condition that the settlement remain confidential.  Ms. Townsend refused.
 
In the months following George's death, Ms. Townsend began researching this drug on the internet and soon discovered dozens of other pet owners who had similar experiences with Rimadyl®.  Fueled by the growing number of people whose dogs had become sick or died after taking the drug, Ms. Townsend, along with other concerned pet owners, started a campaign to raise awareness of the potential for serious side-effects with this and other veterinary medicines.  As part of that campaign, Ms. Townsend and others met with FDA officials as well as Pfizer veterinarians, urging them to step-up efforts to more thoroughly inform pet owners of the potential for serious side-effects with veterinary medicines.  
Unsatisfied with the response of the FDA and Pfizer, Ms. Townsend turned to the legal system and filed a class-action lawsuit.  In her suit, Ms. Townsend sought reimbursement of the $734.00 in veterinary expenses she had incurred trying to save George, as well as establishing a class action on behalf of the hundreds of other dog owners whose pets had become ill or died.
 
In the meantime, reports of adverse reactions to Rimadyl® continued to rise, and in 1998, Rimadyl® accounted for almost 39% of all Adverse Drug Experience Reports received by the FDA.  The reports were so numerous that in December of 1999, the FDA took the extraordinary step of issuing a public statement on the drug.  
Within months of Ms. Townsend's suit and the "Update on Rimadyl®" issued by the FDA, Pfizer announced significant changes in packaging, and that it would begin dispensing a Client Information Sheet to be included with veterinary prescriptions of Rimadyl®.  The Client Information Sheet, modeled after similar drug information sheets included with many human drugs, was to provide pet owners with easily understandable information about the potential side-effects and what to do if side-effects occur.
 
Ms. Townsend reports that as part of the settlement, Pfizer made cash offers to over 300 other dog owners across the country to settle claims for death or injury to the dog, veterinary expenses, property damage, emotional distress and punitive damages.  These individual offers averaged over $1000.00 per animal and did not include a confidentiality provision.
 
Speaking about the lawsuit and the settlement, Ms. Townsend said, "I am pleased that through this suit, hundreds of other pet owners will be reimbursed for veterinary expenses and the loss of their pets.  Of course, no amount of money would ever replace the loss of my friend George, and the loss of so many other beloved companions."  But to Ms. Townsend, (who donated her settlement proceeds to a local veterinarian to perform surgery on a pet whose owners could not afford the surgery) the issue is far more than the money paid by Pfizer.  It is the growing public awareness that the medications we give our pets can have serious side-effects.  "We, as pet owners, have the right to know as much about the good and bad sides of veterinary medicines as we do the medicines we give ourselves."

For further information please contact:
 
Jean Townsend
1769 Clark Hills Circle
Johns Island, SC 29455
(843) 559-2134 or e-mail: luswinton@aol.com 
 

May my beloved partner ROMI rest in peace  - no matter wherever her bits and pieces/frozen carcass may be held hostage.

    

[What's really in YOUR "urn"?]

 
This Website Built and Hosted for Free at
Bravenet.com