The wait for the Anil Potti trial has gotten a little bit longer, courtesy of the flu.
The plaintiff attorneys in the medical malpractice lawsuit against Duke University filed by patients enrolled in discredited researcher Anil Potti’s clinical trials contracted the flu late last week, leading the trial to be postponed by Superior Court Judge Robert Ervin. Originally, the trial was scheduled to begin 10 a.m. Monday in Durham County Superior Court.
A new trial date has not yet been set.
“It appears several motions in the case may still be heard near the end of this week, depending on how everyone recovers,” said plaintiff attorney Thomas Henson, Jr.
A hearing scheduled for 10 a.m. Thursday is still on the calendar, according to the Durham County clerk of Superior Court.
Potti received complaints about his research from peer-reviewed journals, news publications and a medical student working in his lab beginning in 2008. Duke administration, however, did not pursue the concerns until 2010—when national cancer research publication The Cancer Letter reported that Potti had falsified information on his resume, leading to probes into his work and an eventual investigation by the Institute of Medicine of Potti’s research misconduct and the University’s response.
Potti’s clinical trials were suspended and later canceled as more information about his research misconduct came to light.
Many of Potti’s papers have been retracted in the years since, and the final investigation report by the Institute of Medicine noted several issues with Duke’s handling of the case.
In the original complaint filed with the court, plaintiffs argued that patients’ participation in Duke’s clinical trials was under false pretenses, their cancer was treated improperly and they had unnecessary chemotherapy.
Furthermore, plaintiffs claim that the trial resulted in mental and physical injury.
Altogether, 117 patients enrolled in the three clinical studies at Duke, according to The Cancer Letter.
Attorneys defending Duke argue that no patients were harmed during the now-discredited clinical trial.
Duke’s motion states that the standards contained in the Belmont report—the 1979 report by the National Commission for Protection of Human Services of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which sets out ethical standards and requirements for research institutions—are not a part of North Carolina law.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Duke had abundant opportunities to recognize that the genomic technology used in the trials was fraudulent.
The case was filed in October 2011, nearly a year after Potti resigned. The defendants are Duke University, Duke University Health System, Duke Private Diagnostic Clinic, Potti and Dr. Joseph Nevins, who served as a research mentor to Potti at Duke.
Defense attorneys could not be reached for comment Monday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.