Jury Awards Widow $253.4M in Vioxx Trial

[BigDaddy]

ANGLETON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable for the death of a man who took the once-popular painkiller Vioxx.
Jurors awarded Robert Ernst's widow, Carol, $253.4 million in damages, which is a combination of his lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager, mental anguish, loss of companionship and punitive damages.

The case drew national attention from pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers, stock analysts and arbitragers as a signal of what lies ahead for Merck, which has vowed to fight the more than 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the country. Merck said it plans to appeal.

A seven-man, five-woman jury from a semi-rural county south of Houston deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before blaming the drug for killing Ernst in his sleep in 2001. Jurors rejected Merck's argument that Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia.

In Texas, punitive damages are capped at twice the amount of economic damages -- lost pay -- and up to $750,000 on top of non-economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of companionship. Non-economic damages have no limit in Texas except in medical malpractice cases, which doesn't apply to the Ernst case.

Shares of Merck & Co. fell $1.01, or 3.3 percent, to $29.40 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the verdict.

[spainlinx0]

How can anyone in their right mind award that kind of money to any one person?

[X]

Remember those "obscene" drug manufacturer profits some people keep harping about?

[nemein]

I would say it might be a good time to short Merck stock but usually when I try these things in the past it somehow blows up in my face :(

[BigDaddy]

I was not aware that produce managers at Wal Mart made this kind of money. ;) It is sad he died but are we sure the drug was the cause?

[CRM114]

How can anyone in their right mind award that kind of money to any one person?

People don't trust corporations let alone pharmaceutical corps. These types of awards are meant to send a message, AFAIK.

[grundle]

I guess the pay at Wal Mart must be better than what I had thought.

[classicman2]

It's not enough.

Merck knew the risk & lied about the risks.

When you lie and endager folks' lives, you should have to pay - and pay - and pay.

[al_bundy]

i read the news story and it mentioned that there was testimony that it was possible that the heart attack wasn't caused by the drug

[al_bundy]

when you complain about the price of drugs, this is where the money is going

[classicman2]

i read the news story and it mentioned that there was testimony that it was possible that the heart attack wasn't caused by the drug

Let me guess - that testimony came from the respondent side - Merick - right?

when you complain about the price of drugs, this is where the money is going.

Nonsense! It's a drop in the bucket to the overall profits.

Don't make me cite the profits of the major industries in this country. It's been done over and over and over on this forum, and you defenders of the drug manufacturers run like scared biddies when the facts appear.

[classicman2]

Pardon me - I meant to say 'you apologists for the drug companies.'

[CRM114]

when you complain about the price of drugs, this is where the money is going

I thought it was for "recouping their R&D money." Woe are the massive conglomerates. I weep for them. :lol:

[kvrdave]

From a previous thread:
------------------------------------------------------
Popular Science, April 2005, page36.

100 = percent increasein risk of heart attack and stroke found in 2004 Merck sponsored study of 2,586 patients taking the painkiller vioxx

88,000-140,000 = Estimated cases of serious coronary heart disease in the U.S. caused by Vioxx since its launch in 1999, according to an FDA study.

1.2 million = Number of Americans with Vioxx prescriptions when it was voluntarily recalled last September.

100,000 = Number of patients who switched from Vioxx to Celebrex, a prescription painkiller in the same class, the week after the recall.

150 = Percent increase in risk of heart attack and stroke in a National Cancer Institute study of 2,000 plus Celebrex patients last December

0 = Percent more effective Vioxx and Celebrex are at relieving pain compared with traditional pain relievers such as aspirin and ibuprofen

100,000 = Estimated number of Americans who die every year because of adverse reactions to perscription drugs.
-------------------------------------------------

But I suppose Popular Science is just another Pharm apologist. -wink-

The biggest mistake Merck made was taking the product off the market voluntarily. From there they had a perceived admission of guilt, etc. and then you just let the lawyers confirm it.

[CRM114]

So are you telling me that DEATH was one of the "possible side effects" listed in the fine print?

[wildcatlh]

So are you telling me that DEATH was one of the "possible side effects" listed in the fine print?

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me. You ever read that stuff?

[grundle]

Birth control pills increase the risk of death from heart attack and stroke. How come liberals never advocate filing lawsuits over that?

[Bandoman]

Birth control pills increase the risk of death from heart attack and stroke. How come liberals never advocate filing lawsuits over that?

Because the manufacturers of birth control pills warn of those particular risks. In the Vioxx case there was evidence that Merck knew of the risk and deliberately hid that knowledge.

I'm curious: what makes you think liberals are responsible for these lawsuits? You don't think any of the plaintiffs lawyers could possibly be Republican? Or perhaps, as seems most reasonable, their party affiliation has nothing to do with it.

[Pharoh]

Because the manufacturers of birth control pills warn of those particular risks. In the Vioxx case there was evidence that Merck knew of the risk and deliberately hid that knowledge.

I'm curious: what makes you think liberals are responsible for these lawsuits? You don't think any of the plaintiffs lawyers could possibly be Republican? Or perhaps, as seems most reasonable, their party affiliation has nothing to do with it.



What is it you do for a living again?

I have a hunch your answer has everything to do with his reasoning.

[Bandoman]

What is it you do for a living again?

I have a hunch your answer has everything to do with his reasoning.

I'm a lawyer, but you already knew that. I represent defendants in civil suits (products liability and construction accident cases). I've defended medical malpractice suits as well. I'm the first person to criticize patently ridiculous claims, but the Vioxx claim isn't ridiculous.

[Pharoh]

I'm a lawyer, but you already knew that. I represent defendants in civil suits (products liability and construction accident cases). I've defended medical malpractice suits as well. I'm the first person to criticize patently ridiculous claims, but the Vioxx claim isn't ridiculous.


And I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out that when he speaks about liberals behind the suits, he, or anybody else, is likely not refering to the plaintiffs but the trial lawyers behind them, along with those opposed to litigation reform.

[Bandoman]

IMO litigation reform is a red herring. Regardless, this case isn't one which supports the litigation reform proponents.

[E70f]

Remember those "obscene" drug manufacturer profits some people keep harping about?

Yep, and I remember last year when Merck's obscene profits got massively reduced on appeal. Oh wait.

[Gallant Pig]

I don't want to sound like an A-Hole or offend our Elderly Posters, but it seems like in situations like this, they should consider an age cap. Dying of a heart attack at the age of 60 seems like a natural thing that would be extremely difficult to pinpoint the exact reason.

Once the Vioxx thing came out there was spam being sent by lawyers recruiting anyone who has ever taken vioxx for a trial. Spam sent by ambulance chasing laywers is also one of the signs of the coming apocolyse.

[X]

It sure doesn't look like Merck has been making obscene profits for quite a while.

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=MRK&t=5y&q=l&l=on&z=l&p=s

[DodgingCars]

It's not enough.

Merck knew the risk & lied about the risks.

When you lie and endager folks' lives, you should have to pay - and pay - and pay.

Like tobacco, right?

[al_bundy]

IBD says Merck has had profit growth of -7% in the last 3 years

[Ranger]

IMO litigation reform is a red herring. Regardless, this case isn't one which supports the litigation reform proponents.
Yeah, you can see the apparent double standard.

Something like:

"Those big bad drug companies have got to pay up - BIG!

Whoa, what is with you all evil lawyers suing those poor doctors?"

It should be clear that malpractice bill was just a pathetic attempt to reduce the "burden" of doctors paying malpractice insurance.

[Bandoman]

It should be clear that malpractice bill was just a pathetic attempt to reduce the "burden" of doctors paying malpractice insurance.

It is a burden, and a very heavy one for many doctors. Between rising malpractice premiums and HMOs regulating how much doctors can charge, I wonder how many of them can make a living. It's a complex issue, however, and the doctors bear part of the blame for not coming down harder on members of their profession who are the repeat offenders, the "bad docs", who commit malpractic repeatedly.

[classicman2]

What is it you do for a living again?

I have a hunch your answer has everything to do with his reasoning.

Come on, Pharoh,

Merck knew of the risk and they lied to the FDA.

[Bandoman]

Come on, Pharoh,

Merck knew of the risk and they lied to the FDA.


Yep. Once the jury made that determination, I'm sure they didn't look too closely at the medical causation argument. They decided right then and there to punish Merck.

[wildcatlh]

Listening to the jurors being interviewed here on CNN, it seems that they didn't even look at any evidence as to whether this man's heart attack was caused by Vioxx, just that Vioxx was bad.

This is gonna get overturned on appeal.

[Bandoman]

Listening to the jurors being interviewed here on CNN, it seems that they didn't even look at any evidence as to whether this man's heart attack was caused by Vioxx, just that Vioxx was bad.

This is gonna get overturned on appeal.


I dont think so. There was conflicting evidence. The only question the appellate court will consider (on that issue) is whether, viewing the evidence in favor of the plaintiff, there was sufficient evidence on which the jury could base their verdict.

There will be remittitur, however, from the trial judge.

[wildcatlh]

It is a burden, and a very heavy one for many doctors. Between rising malpractice premiums and HMOs regulating how much doctors can charge, I wonder how many of them can make a living. It's a complex issue, however, and the doctors bear part of the blame for not coming down harder on members of their profession who are the repeat offenders, the "bad docs", who commit malpractic repeatedly.

That's the thing.

There are a bunch of bad, bad lawyers out there. But I can say that we try to o a pretty good job of weeding them out and getting them out of practice -- to the point where if you see another lawyer commit malpractice and you don't report it, you've committed malpractice yourself.

I've never understood why doctors don't have the same type of system.

[grundle]

Because the manufacturers of birth control pills warn of those particular risks. In the Vioxx case there was evidence that Merck knew of the risk and deliberately hid that knowledge.
That's a great answer. Thanks.

It does seem that someone in this thread (not you) expects all drugs to have zero side effects.
I'm curious: what makes you think liberals are responsible for these lawsuits? You don't think any of the plaintiffs lawyers could possibly be Republican? Or perhaps, as seems most reasonable, their party affiliation has nothing to do with it.
Another excellent point.

[grundle]

The FDA was the "impartial watchdog" that gave Vioxx the seal of approval. Why wasn't the FDA sued along with Merck?

[grundle]

Listening to the jurors being interviewed here on CNN, it seems that they didn't even look at any evidence as to whether this man's heart attack was caused by Vioxx, just that Vioxx was bad.

This is gonna get overturned on appeal.
Every person posting in this thread would be turned down for jury duty, because we're all too smart to be manipulated by lawyers.

[DodgingCars]

The FDA was the "impartial watchdog" that gave Vioxx the seal of approval. Why wasn't the FDA sued along with Merck?

Why wasn't the SEC sued when Enron lied?

[Bandoman]

The FDA was the "impartial watchdog" that gave Vioxx the seal of approval. Why wasn't the FDA sued along with Merck?


Two words: governmental immunity. Some members of Congress have already called the FDA "negligent" for failing to listen to their own experts on this issue.

[grundle]

Why wasn't the SEC sued when Enron lied?
Because the SEC doesn't give pre-approval of coprorations' honesty.

But the FDA does give pre-apporval of drugs' safety.

The FDA said the drug was safe. So why wasn't the FDA sued?

[grundle]

Two words: governmental immunity. Some members of Congress have already called the FDA "negligent" for failing to listen to their own experts on this issue.
Thanks.

Even though I'm a (CENSORED SO AS NOT TO ANNOY YOU ALL) I acknowledge that the FDA was created because the free martket failed to address the issue of drug safety.

[bhk]

If you looked at the original studies comparing Vioxx and Celebrex to Ibuprofen the information is there that there is an increased risk of mortal coronary events with Vioxx and Celebrex. But, these medications were developed due to the very high risk of significant GI complications(such as perforation, massive internal hemorrhage due to ulcers, fistulas, etc) caused by medication like Ibuprofen.
I suspect that on appeal, the amount will be reduced.

And there is some evidence that medication like Ibuprofen also slightly increases the risk of coronary events in people that are at risk for them.

[Pharoh]

Come on, Pharoh,

Merck knew of the risk and they lied to the FDA.



:hscratch:

I don't believe I ever stated anything contrary. I am not here supporting Merck, though I do think the amount of the award to be grossly excessive.



BTW, receive your almanac yet? I got mine yesterday or the the day before.

[classicman2]

I rec'd. mine in this morning's mail.

[Bandoman]

...I do think the amount of the award to be grossly excessive.



If this award was for compensatory damages alone, I would agree. However, it also includes punitive damages, which have nothing to do with what the plaintiff "deserves". Punitive damages are aptly named, as they are designed to punish the defendant for gross or wanton wrongdoing. The only way for a jury to effectively punish a large corporation is to award enough money to make it hurt. The theory is that this will deter future similar conduct.

Punitive damages are based on the defendant's net worth.

[jfoobar]

0 = Percent more effective Vioxx and Celebrex are at relieving pain compared with traditional pain relievers such as aspirin and ibuprofen


I have to call shenanigans on this one. I took Vioxx for about a year for a sciatic condition in my back and right leg and it worked wonderfully when no OTB pain killer I ever took did much to dull the pain. I switched to Bextra after the voluntary recall and it did virtually nothing as well.

I eventually had to have surgery (laminectomy) as there seemed to be no way to reasonably medicate it.

After 2 months of painful rehab and maybe 6 months of fairly pain-free existence, the problem is back again. :sad:

[Red Dog]

It should shock no one that I am in 100% agreement with Professor Richard Epstein's commentary in today's WSJ.

[BigDaddy]

It should shock no one that I am in 100% agreement with Professor Richard Epstein's commentary in today's WSJ.


Can you post or let us know what he said.

[bhk]

Can you post or let us know what he said.

Sue everyone for every reason.



;)
(I don't know what Epstein wrote in his column)

[Red Dog]

Can you post or let us know what he said.


I don't have a WSJ account - I read it in the actual paper. I don't want to summarize it because a summary would not do it justice. If anyone has a WSJ account, could you please post it?

[Dave99]

I'm kind of curious why all the drug co's don't just put a blanket disclaimer of this kind of stuff? Put on everything "while nobody died during our clinical trials, there is always a chance of death", shit, nobody reads or cares about the side effects anyway...just seems like that would be an easy way to cover their ass.

dave
Because the manufacturers of birth control pills warn of those particular risks. In the Vioxx case there was evidence that Merck knew of the risk and deliberately hid that knowledge.

I'm curious: what makes you think liberals are responsible for these lawsuits? You don't think any of the plaintiffs lawyers could possibly be Republican? Or perhaps, as seems most reasonable, their party affiliation has nothing to do with it.

[Pharoh]

I don't have a WSJ account - I read it in the actual paper. I don't want to summarize it because a summary would not do it justice. If anyone has a WSJ account, could you please post it?


Here you go:

By RICHARD A. EPSTEIN
August 22, 2005; Page A10

CHICAGO -- The most memorable observation in Frederick Wiseman's film, "The Thin Blue Line," runs like this: "It takes a good Texas prosecutor to convict the guilty . . . and a great Texas prosecutor to convict the innocent." Today, this wry remark applies to plaintiffs lawyers, now that Mark Lanier, down in Angleton, Texas, has drawn blood from Merck for its former blockbuster drug, Vioxx.

Forget the jury's whopping quarter-billion-dollar verdict in Ernst v. Merck, because it's cut 90% by the caps that Texas law places on punitive damages. Still, where do $25 million in actual damages come from? Robert Ernst died in his sleep, without pain and without medical bills. His lost income as a Wal-Mart employee was small. But the $24 million price tag for anguish and loss of companionship to his widow Carol is off the charts. And for what?

Not the death of her husband, whose arteries were 70% clogged and who died, so Dr. Maria Araneta's death certificate states, of arrhythmia, or irregular heart beat. No mention of any heart attack. But in his dramatic eleventh-hour maneuver, Mr. Lanier whisked Dr. Araneta back from the Arabian peninsula to testify conveniently that she really thought that an undetected blood clot had caused the death, but had been dislodged in the last-ditch efforts at resuscitation.

* * *
Pretend that this new account is true, and it still doesn't show that Vioxx caused the blood clot. Long before Vioxx, people died of heart failure from all sorts of causes, including physical exertion and dehydration. That second causal link to Vioxx was not made even if the first one to a blood clot is generously presumed. Carol Ernst's lawsuit should be DOA right here, but a clever set of jury instructions allowed the jury to say that Vioxx may have been a contributory cause of death.

By what odds? Merck's clinical trials showed an elevated risk of heart attacks but only in persons that took Vioxx in heavy doses for intestinal polyps for 18 months or more. Ernst took Vioxx only for eight months. In post-trial interviews, the jury members revealed their anger that the company didn't show "respect" for its customers by telling the truth about Vioxx's risks. And they clearly were moved by Mr. Lanier's expert bashing of Merck's medical employee, Dr. Nancy Santanello, who struggled to explain how Merck tried to show the efficacy of the drug in response to criticisms of it.

All this goes to show that physicians under the gun make lousy witnesses, which we already knew. To understand the Angleton verdict, one would think that Vioxx were the moral equivalent of mustard gas. But in truth, we should be grateful to any firm that speeds its product to market when its anticipated use promises many more benefits than adverse side-effects. Merck should not apologize for pushing hard to win quick market acceptance; before Vioxx was withdrawn, countless people with chronic pain were able to get on with their lives. Now these folks are left far worse off because of a double whammy: a Food and Drug Administration that yanks too many drugs off the market because it has no idea how to evaluate risk, and individual jurors who think it is their solemn duty to "send a message" to the drug companies on whose products we so desperately depend.

* * *
So, in return, I would like to send my message to Mr. Lanier and those indignant jurors. It's not from an irate tort professor, but from a scared citizen who is steamed that those "good people" have imperiled his own health and that of his family and friends. None of you have ever done a single blessed thing to help relieve anybody's pain and suffering. Just do the math to grasp the harm that you've done.

Right now there are over 4,000 law suits against Merck for Vioxx. If each clocks in at $25 million, then your verdict is that the social harm from Vioxx exceeds $100 billion, before thousands more join in the treasure hunt. Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra could easily be next. Understand that no future drug will be free of adverse side effects, nor reach market, without the tough calls that Merck had to make with Vioxx. Your implicit verdict is to shut down the entire quest for new medical therapies. Your verdict says you think that the American public is really better off with just hot-water bottles and leftover aspirin tablets.

Ah, you will say, but we're only after Vioxx, and not those good drugs. Sorry, the investment community won't take you at your word. It realizes that any new drug which treats common chronic conditions can generate the same ruinous financial losses as Vioxx, because the flimsy evidence on causation and malice you cobbled together in the Ernst case can be ginned up in any other. Clever lawyers like Mr. Lanier will be able to ambush enough large corporations in small, dusty towns where they will stand the same chance of survival that Custer had at Little Big Horn. Investors can multiply: They won't bet hundreds of millions of dollars in new therapies on the off-chance of being proved wrong. They know they'll go broke if they win 90% of the time.

Your appalling carnage cries out for prompt action. Much as I disapprove of how the FDA does business, we must enact this hard-edged no-nonsense legal rule: no drug that makes it through the FDA gauntlet can be attacked for bad warnings or deficient design. In plain English, Mr. Lanier, you're out of court before you make your opening statement. You've already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the fancy diagrams that university economists use to explain why the negligence system maximizes social welfare is an academic delusion that clever lawyers use to prop up a broken tort system.

So where does that leave Merck? Perhaps in Chapter 11, where this madness may be brought to a halt.

[movielib]

Here's another:

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.619/news_detail.asp

August 19, 2005

Vioxx: Good Medicine, Bad Verdict

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.

Today's news that a jury found the pharmaceutical company Merck negligent in its marketing of the painkiller Vioxx, awarding $229 million in damages, is bad news for all consumers who hope that pharmaceutical companies will continue to develop new drugs -- to address not only their aches and pains but life-threatening conditions like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

Specifically, the jury declared that Merck must pay more than $253 million to the family of a Texas man who died after taking the company's Vioxx painkiller. This is the first personal-injury case over the drug to come to trial. There will be more such cases -- and if similar verdicts are the result, we have a classic case of killing the goose who is laying the golden eggs.

Jurors awarded $24.4 million in actual damages and $229 million in punitive damages to the family of Robert Ernst, whose lawyers argued that Merck rushed Vioxx to market without proper safety testing, to compete with Pfizer Inc.'s Celebrex painkiller. The family, who claimed Ernst developed an irregular heartbeat because of Vioxx, said the company played down the drug's potential for causing heart attacks and strokes.

In reality, Vioxx underwent years and years of study and evaluation. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA reviewed all available data and agreed that Vioxx should be marketed. All drugs have risks as well as benefits. The FDA decided that the benefits of Vioxx outweighed the risks. That approval was based on current, state-of-the-art knowledge about the safety and efficacy of Vioxx. Such safety and efficacy studies are, by necessity, based on examination of results on a relatively small number of patients. Only post-surveillance data (that is, reports of benefits and risk after the drug is approved and used by large numbers of patients) can pick up unforeseen problems like, in the case of Vioxx, increased risk of heart disease in some highly vulnerable users.

If pharmaceutical companies are held liable for unpredicted consequences of pharmaceuticals that receive FDA blessing, what is the incentive for the companies to produce new drugs? If liability costs (a substantial portion of which are paid directly to plaintiffs lawyers) wipe out the company's potential to recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars (in some cases, over a billion) spent in researching, developing, and testing a drug, why would a company even bother to pursue new pharmaceutical innovations?

The time has come to consider providing legal immunity to pharmaceutical companies who are granted FDA approval. Otherwise, we are holding them accountable and responsible for effects that (a) may not actually be validated or (b) were not known at the time the drug was approved.

Not to consider this option threatens the health of all of us, our children, and our grandchildren, who look to research pharmaceutical companies to provide the blockbuster drugs of the future.

Elizabeth Whelan, Sc.D., MPH, is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

[grundle]

Epstein makes a lot of great points.

[classicman2]

Today's news that a jury found the pharmaceutical company Merck negligent in its marketing of the painkiller Vioxx, awarding $229 million in damages, is bad news for all consumers who hope that pharmaceutical companies will continue to develop new drugs -- to address not only their aches and pains but life-threatening conditions like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

Hogwash!!

It's great news for the consumer. Anytime you punish a company for wrong doing and lying to a government agency, it can't be anything but good news for the public.

This R&D argument has been shown for what it is (crap) time and time again on this forum. Only the drug company apologists still defend them.

[al_bundy]

Around 5-10 years ago there was a big outcry because a lot of drugs were tied up in the bowels of the FDA for a lengthy approval process. People were suffering and a faster process was made. Now that companies are being sued I wouldn't be surprised if good drugs are held back from the market if their side effects are too severe.

[classicman2]

And apparently quite a few people suffered and died from using Vioxx, a drug that Merck knew posed a danger to the consumer.

Can I least hear you drug company apologists admit that Merck knew the risks and lied to the FDA about those risks of Vioxx - a drug that I took for arthritis for a period of time?

[hahn]

Because the SEC doesn't give pre-approval of coprorations' honesty.

But the FDA does give pre-apporval of drugs' safety.

The FDA said the drug was safe. So why wasn't the FDA sued?

The FDA themselves do not conduct the drug testing. It is up to the companies to test them and provide evidence that they are safe. The results of the tests are rigorously examined by the FDA. However, the people examining the studies are still human, and thus can make errors of oversight. Every drug carries risk. When the FDA makes a determination of safety, they are weighing benefits versus risk. But it's FAR from being an exact science.

[grundle]

Can I least hear you drug company apologists admit that Merck knew the risks and lied to the FDA about those risks of Vioxx - a drug that I took for arthritis for a period of time?
Yes.

Merck knew about the risks of Vioxx.

Merck lied to the FDA about the risks of Vioxx.

Are you willing to admit that the death in this particular lawsuit was not caused by Vioxx?

This R&D argument has been shown for what it is (crap) time and time again on this forum. Only the drug company apologists still defend them.
Then how do you explain the fact that Canada and other countries greatly reduced their private investment in drug research after their governments introduced price controls on drugs?

[classicman2]

No, I'm not willing to admit that.

There is conflicting medical opinions as to what caused his death. There is absolutely no conflict about Merck's lying through their teeth when they knew the risks of the drug they advertised heavily - not caring about the consumer - only interested in more and more profits.

[Bandoman]

No, I'm not willing to admit that.

There is conflicting medical opinions as to what caused his death. There is absolutely no conflict about Merck's lying through their teeth when they knew the risks of the drug they advertised heavily - not caring about the consumer - only interested in more and more profits.

Agreed. I don't know enough about the medical evidence in this case to reach an informed opinon, I just know that 12 jurors heard Merck's defense and rejected it. Could they have ignored a valid and persuasive medical defense because they were so angry with Merck for lying? Sure.

[Red Dog]

No, I'm not willing to admit that.

There is conflicting medical opinions as to what caused his death. There is absolutely no conflict about Merck's lying through their teeth when they knew the risks of the drug they advertised heavily - not caring about the consumer - only interested in more and more profits.


You wouldn't accept any defense from Merck because of the profits they make.

Here is c-man's view of tort law...

Judgment against defendant with deep pockets = jury just going after deep pockets.

Judgment against defendant with really deep pockets = jury doing the right thing - they got it right.

[classicman2]

Whether they have deep pockets or not has nothing to do with this.

Merck's deliberate & calous actions endangered not only the health but the very lives of many, many people.

If you don't believe they should have to pay for that reckless endangerment - then why have any regulation at all?

Have you heard the old saying - 'break them from sucking eggs?' Well that's the message the jury sent to Merck.

[Red Dog]

Whether they have deep pockets or not has nothing to do with this.

Merck's deliberate & calous actions endangered not only the health but the very lives of many, many people.

If you don't believe they should have to pay for that reckless endangerment - then why have any regulation at all?



There are major causation problems with this case, as Professor Epstein pointed out. Just because they lied to the public does not mean that they caused the death of Mr. Ernst. I have major doubts that this jury was able to understand the difference btwn lying and causation. Now if the suit was for intentional misrepresentation, then you should have a great case.

The bigger point is what good is the FDA? People say we need the FDA to protect us against big bad companies. Well, if they are not doing independent testing and they are not accountable to the people in situations where they goof, then why are we spending so much money to fund it?

[classicman2]

I wish the FDA had much more power.

One remedy I could suggest is to take away a selected view of Merck's patents & copyrights & allow the generic companies to produce those drugs.

A couple of times and companies like Merck would soon get the message.

Then they would have to be satisfied with huge profits instead of the current obscene profits they make. ;)

[classicman2]

I know what juries due in malpractice cases involving doctors. I've sat on a jury. Does Red Dog believe that's o.k. for the juries to award the plaintiff a few hundred thousand dollars - even if there was no real malpractice by the doctor?

[Red Dog]

I know what juries due in malpractice cases involving doctors. I've sat on a jury. Does Red Dog believe that's o.k. for the juries to award the plaintiff a few hundred thousand dollars - even if there was no real malpractice by the doctor?


Of course not. Where have I ever said that? So you've sat on a jury. Big deal. That doesn't mean it is representative of every MM case. Many of the MM claims are nuisance claims. It doesn't mean that all doctors are infallible and should be immune from liability.


I wish the FDA had much more power.

Fine, but as Uncle Ben says, "with great power comes great responsibility." If you give the FDA much more power, would you agree with stripping the FDA of sovereign immunity if they goof?

[classicman2]

Yahoo News:

Judge declares mistrial in Vioxx trial

A U.S. judge on Monday declared a mistrial in the first federal lawsuit against Merck & Co. Inc. and its painkiller Vioxx.

A nine member jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict after deliberating since Thursday on whether Vioxx had contributed to the heart attack death of a Florida man in 2001.

U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon said he would hold a conference with the lawyers in the case in the coming days to set a new trial date.

Merck pulled the drug off the market in September last year after it said it had become clear that long-term usage could double users' risk of heart attack or stroke.

In August, Merck was found liable for the death of a Texas man in state court. A second trial in New Jersey state court exonerated the company in the death of another man.

Merck faces more than 7,000 lawsuits claiming the Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, company hid for years the risks of heart attack and stroke linked to its blockbuster drug.

Analysts have said the company's legal costs to fight the cases could total several billion dollars.

The jury had been asked to decide whether Vioxx had contributed to the heart attack death of Richard "Dicky" Irvin, Jr., who took the drug for less than a month for back pain.

[kvrdave]

They ought to sue the FDA for allowing it to be sold in the first place. What is the point of having an FDA if their approval doesn't mean anything?

[AGuyNamedMike]

Sue?!?!?!?!? It's not about the money, it's about right & wrong and life or death. Whoever lied to the FDA, and whoever knowingly allowed it, should be indicted in criminal court. This litigation business benefits almost nobody (except the plaintiff's attorneys always, and the plaintiff themselves sometimes). The companies take a hit on their financials after trying to pass on as much of it as they can to the customer by raising prices, then chalk it up to a rough year and just continue the same practices. But when you put the fear of hard jail time for corporate officers into the mix, change begins. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[VinVega]

They ought to sue the FDA for allowing it to be sold in the first place. What is the point of having an FDA if their approval doesn't mean anything?
Many people feel that the FDA is in the pockets of big drug companies. But some other people want us to "feel the pain" of big drug companies. ;)

[classicman2]

Rest assured - a whole bunch of people feel the pain inflicted by the big drug companies, and not just with drugs that will kill you, but with prices that you can't afford, and you die anyway, because you can't afford them.

[bhk]

Well, in the case of Vioxx, there are other meds available that treat the same thing for 50 per $4-$5. The advantage of Vioxx is that it is associated with less GI problems(bleding from ulcers, hospitalization, strictures of the GI tract etc.) than Ibuprofen.

[classicman2]

How about Naproxen?

[bhk]

How about Naproxen?
Pretty much the same GI and Kidney side-effects as Ibuprofen. I was in fellowship when Celebrex came out and we were pretty excited about these medications because they would have less GI side-effects. The other system side-effect profile was similar to Ibuprofen.

[Sdallnct]

Does this fall within some of the new guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in punitive damages? I was thinking I read where the Supreme Court stated that punitive damages should rarely exceed single digit mulitplies from the actual damages? Will have to do some looking.