The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Auto Safety (CAS) called on the U.S. Justice Department to investigate whether GM violated section 1001 of the U.S. Criminal Code and the Vehicle Safety Act by withholding or submitting misleading information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In February, an Atlanta jury decided that the pickup trucks were built with an unsafe fuel tank design, making them vulnerable to fires in sideswipe accidents. The jury awarded $105 million to the parents of Shannon Moseley, who was killed in a fiery crash involving one of GM's pickup trucks in 1989. The award includes $101 million in punitive damages.
In a February letter to acting U.S. attorney general Stuart Gerson and Federico Pena, head of the Department of Transportation, CAS charged that documents on the fuel tank design were collected and shredded in the early 1980s by the company's legal department and a task force of lawyers. "GM's engineering department accumulated vast amounts of information on the hazards of gas tanks located outside the frame of its full- size pickups built after 1972. This information ranged from accident data, to crash tests in which GM pickup gas tanks split like melons, to recommendations for improving fuel tank safety."
CAS executive director Clarence Ditlow points to 22 safety tests performed by GM on the pickups in 1981-83, which were concealed until exposed during the 1990 Moseley litigation. Ditlow charges that by covering up this data on the safety hazards of the fuel tank design, GM violated criminal law.
GM responded to the allegation of document-shredding in a February 16 statement. "This allegation is a matter of great concern to GM. We have been investigating this matter internally and have thus far found no evidence of destruction of documents to avoid discovery, or otherwise to obstruct the process of justice."
CAS charges that GM pickups have been responsible for the deaths of over 300 people in fire crashes and that GM has been covering up the danger of the pickups for nearly 20 years.
Cosmetic surgeons Laurence Wolf and James Moore of Houston filed suit against 11 makers of silicone implants including Dow Corning Corporation, seeking unspecified monetary damages. The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. At least a dozen more doctors are expected to join the lawsuit. Toni Young of the National Women's Health Network says she believes that the doctors' lawsuit is the first of its kind.
The complaint charges that implant manufacturers engaged in a "civil conspiracy" to deprive doctors of information about the dangers of breast implants: "Defendants conspired between and among themselves to mislead and defraud the medical community, the United States government and the general public about the proven safety characteristics of the breast implants."
Approximately one million women in the United States have silicone gel breast implants. In April 1992 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limited use of the implants for cosmetic purposes to women who are part of small studies, and said that implant makers must prove the product's safety.
The doctors' complaint charges that the defendants put them at risk for malpractice suits because they "intentionally and purposefully led the plastic surgery community to believe that extensive research had been performed concerning the potential health effects of the implants, and that the research proved that the products were safe for their intended use."
"We've conducted hundreds of tests on the safety of silicone over the past 30 years and the results ... have shown that silicones are safe and effective and they don't pose an unreasonable risk," responds Christy Meter, spokesperson for Dow Corning.
In return for approximately $300 million over the next four years, Scripps turned over to Sandoz the rights to commercialize any or all of its research between 1997 and 2007.
The NIH announcement came after the San Diego Union-Tribune reported the deal and Representative Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, wrote a letter to NIH director Bernadine Healy calling for the investigation. Wyden's letter noted that under the terms of the agreement, "in essence, Scripps becomes a Sandoz laboratory. ... What is most troubling about this deal is the apparent fact that the government has raised no objection to the arrangement."
Wyden went on to ask, "To what degree will the NIH, which could also invest $1 billion in tax dollars in the institute over the next decade, have a hand in restraining the price of drugs commercialized by Sandoz?"
"The government underwrites millions of dollars in drug development," Wyden wrote. "The manufacturer steps in to commercialize the development once the government has proven its profit potential. And the taxpaying consumer gets bumped twice in the form of paying for a highly subsidized drug at a highly inflated cost."n
- Ben Lilliston