Skip to main content
Mayo Clinic Proceedings logoLink to Mayo Clinic Proceedings
. 2010 Jan;85(1):102. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2009.0734

CORRECTIONS

PMCID: PMC2800280

Inaccurate statements: The Commentary by Hirsch entitled “Conflicts of Interest, Authorship, and Disclosures in Industry-Related Scientific Publications: The Tort Bar and Editorial Oversight of Medical Journals” published in the September 2009 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(9):811-821) contained the following inaccuracies.

  1. Dr Egilman's income from serving as a medical expert in tort litigation, etc, was incorrectly reported as $20-$25 million during a 20-year period. Dr Egilman actually testified in court that it was $2-$2.5 million during that time. The source for the original statement in the Commentary was an online newspaper article dated July 31, 2005. The newspaper revised its report of the court testimony by Dr Egilman in a correction that was published only in the local, printed edition on August 2, 2005 (Michael Morris, oral communication, September 11, 2009).

  2. Dr Egilman was not fined by a judge for leaking court-sealed documents concerning the Lilly-Zyprexa litigation. Rather, Dr Egilman and Lilly entered into an (Stipulated) agreement by US District Judge Jack Weinstein, filed September 9, 2007, in which Dr Egilman agreed to pay Lilly $100,000 and to dismiss his appeal of the Court's Final Judgment, Order and Injunction from February and March, 2007 (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/files/EgilmanSettlement.pdf).

  3. Dr Egilman has not testified in court in breast implant and connective tissue disease, or in antidepressant or antipsychotic drug cases. Dr Egilman did provide a sworn affidavit in one case involving local effects of leakage of silicone from breast implants (Vassallo F vs Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. May 5-July 16, 1998, p. 7). In the Lilly-Zyprexa (antipsychotic) litigation, the Lanier law firm represented certain plaintiffs and retained Dr Egilman as an expert medical consultant. When the Lanier law firm learned that Dr Egilman had leaked court-sealed documents (as described in the Commentary), the firm terminated its consultancy with Dr Egilman (http://library.findlaw.com/2007/Mar/1/247065.html and http://technology.findlaw.com/resources/images/weinsteinzyprexainjunction.pdf, p. 27).

I regret these inaccuracies in my Commentary.

Laurence J. Hirsch, MD


Articles from Mayo Clinic Proceedings are provided here courtesy of The Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

RESOURCES