The Debate Continues—
Out of Context: Out of Trust
In the interest of accurate public information and patient safety, I am responding to the carefully-worded release to FindLaw/Legal News (April 16, 2009) by The Containment Technologies Group, Inc. which clearly implies that the recent dismissal of their ill-fated Defamation claim against the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy (AJHP), myself, and my co-authors was almost a legal technicality, rather than the unqualified failure articulated by Chief Judge David F. Hamilton, 7th U. S. District Court.
On March 15, 2007, Marghi R. McKeon, William T.Weiss, and I joined in the publication of an objective study in the AJHP entitled “Potential for Airborne Contamination in Turbulent and Unidirectional-Airflow Compounding Aseptic Isolators.” The outcomes of our study were highly unfavorable to the turbulent airflow MIC4 compounding aseptic isolator (CAI) CTG produces, as compared to four, other CAI’s incorporating unidirectional airflow technology. Read more about the history of this MIC4 court case. »
The Court's Mandate
The torturous progress of this litigation to our ultimate vindication must not be undermined by the parsed, and, therefore, misleading response of CTG. The Court clearly reinforced the significance of our shared interest in robust discussion and open debate without the specter of expensive and frivolous litigation. As Justice Hamilton's final pronouncement so aptly stated: “Quite simply, this battle should take place in the pages of the ASHP journal and similar publications, not in a court.” p. 40. I therefore encourage and invite CTG to heed this mandate and engage in a more productive dialogue than one it has so inappropriately positioned in our legal system. Read more about the MIC4 summary judgment. »
Gregory F. Peters is the primary author of this PDF.
Page numbers refer to the decision of Justice Hamilton, signed March 26, 2009, U. S. Federal Court File No. 1:07-cv-0997-DFH-TAB. The unabridged, 42- page decision is available directly from the Court’s Internet facility, at: http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/AQ9970O2.pdf