Posts Tagged ‘Vioxx’

September 4 roundup

“Business has not trounced the trial lawyers”

My latest column in the Times Online explains why Business Week and some other media outlets are being at best premature (and that’s putting it diplomatically) in declaring the American plaintiff’s bar down for the count. Opening excerpt:

America’s litigation fever is cooling off, or so one hears. Merck & Co is doing reasonably well defending suits over its painkiller Vioxx, while actions blaming foodmakers for obesity have sputtered. Doctors’ malpractice-suit payouts are said to be flat (at what by other countries’ standards are still unthinkably high levels). Last month, the Supreme Court ruled on a punitive damage case in favor of tobacco giant Philip Morris, which has become a Wall Street favorite after wrestling down its perceived legal risks. Nearly every American politician claims to be on board with reform, even the nation’s most famous plaintiff’s-lawyer-made-good: “We do have too many lawsuits”, said John Edwards during the 2004 Presidential debates. A recent Business Week cover sums it up: “How Business Trounced the Trial Lawyers”.

And yet one wonders whether a contest is being called prematurely. … To call a high-water mark is going to require more evidence than we’ve seen so far.

P.S. Other reactions to the Business Week cover story came from Bizzyblog (“Year’s Most Unintentionally Comical”), Roger Parloff (article itself was better than headline), and me at Point of Law (see also this WSJ column).

February 26 roundup

  • High-school basketball player gets TRO over enforcement of technical foul after pushing referee. [Huntington News; Chad @ WaPo]
  • Madison County court rejects Vioxx litigation tourism. [Point of Law]
  • Faking disability for accommodation disqualifies bar applicant [Frisch]
  • DOJ antitrust enforcement doesn’t seem to be consistent with U.S. trade policy position. [Cafe Hayek]
  • Professor falsely accused of sexual harassment wins defamation lawsuit against former plaintiff, but too late to save his job. [Kirkendall]
  • Watch what you say dept.: Disbarred attorney and ex-felon sues newspaper, letter-to-editor writer, Illinois Civil Justice League. (His brother won the judicial election anyway.) [Madison County Record; Belleville News Democrat; US v. Amiel Cueto]

January 23 roundup

  • Trial lawyers look for Democrats to punish. [Point of Law; Investors’ Business Daily]
  • Point of Law Vioxx trial updates: California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
  • Men seeking laws freeing them from child support when DNA proves they’re not the father. Earlier: May 10 and Feb. 3, 2004. [Time]
  • Latest creative defense to a murder charge: Asperger’s syndrome. [Boston Globe]
  • A complicated medmal case is trumped by the sympathy factor [Cortlandt Forum via Kevin MD]
  • Cost of EMTALA (Sep. 2, 2005) in LA County alone: $1.6 billion. LA Times doesn’t mention the law by name or consider the obvious conclusion. [LA Times]
  • Why the painfully obvious explanations on painfully obvious objects? [comments at Obscure Store; New York Sun; new Mike Judge movie Idiocracy]
  • Lessig: stop me before I regulate again! [Hit & Run]
  • Right-wingers take on Dinesh D’Souza [roundup of links at Postrel]
  • The meaningless and counterproductive Democratic House bill on student loans. [Novak @ WaPo]
  • Do big law firms really care about attrition? One theory. [Ivey Files]
  • My girlfriend thinks I spend too much time arguing with idiots. Relatedly, Eugene Volokh responds to Anisa Abd el Fattah about the First Amendment and Jews. [Volokh]

Vioxx lawsuit advertising

Someone had been buying just about all of the advertising space on Google for most of the search terms relating to the recent Ernst v. Merck case with the headline “$250,000,000 Vioxx award,” (or, even more inaccurately, “$250,000,000 Vioxx settlement”) so I decided to see what new schemes the Internet had cooked up for chasing clients. The result is this page, which offers to “refer your Vioxx case” to “Mark Lanier law firm” to review.

The most entertaining part of the site is that there are eight check-boxes to describe the plaintiff’s symptoms, presumably so that lawyers can easily evaluate the submitted case:

Patient had Heart Attack
Patient had a Stroke
Patient had other Heart Problems
Patient Passed Away/Deceased
Patient had Unstable Angina
Patient had a Pulmonary Embolism
Patient had Arterial Thrombosis
Patient had Transient Ischemic Attack

Note the utter absence of an “arrhythmia” checkbox that would describe Robert Ernst’s symptoms, though hundreds of thousands of people suffer fatal arrthymias every year. On the other hand, given the fourth check-box, perhaps Vioxx plaintiffs’ attorneys plan to sue on behalf of everyone who took Vioxx, and then died. If they wait long enough, that will eventually be all of them. Earlier Vioxx ads/spam: Jan. 5; Dec. 22.

Ernst v. Merck opening statements

Fortune has the best coverage of the Thursday opening statements, and notes the contrast between the opening statements of plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier, which was illustrated by pictures of a steamroller and a shell game, and Merck attorney David C. Kiernan, which the magazine seems to think made a mistake in respecting the intelligence of the jury by relying on the science behind the case instead of folksy name-calling. “If the company hoped to win points with the public for erring on the side of safety—its stated public rationale for having pulled the drug—the wager may have been naïve.” And if plaintiffs’ attorneys succeed in punishing Merck for taking safety measures, it’s bound to reduce safety in the future. Meanwhile, the New York Times publishes a puff piece on the plaintiff widow fed to the newspaper by the attorneys, barely acknowledging that her husband died of an arhythmia rather than a blood clot, and then failing to note that Roger Ernst was just one of 200,000 victims a year of fatal atherosclerosis (except in the small print of a photo of the coroner’s certificate), and thus was not “healthy and fit” regardless of whether he was a triathlete. The Times reveals a rogues’ gallery of plaintiffs’ lawyers helping out Lanier, without giving any indication of their unseemly background: Benedict Morelli (Nov. 23, 2003) and Fred Baron’s wife, Lisa Blue of Baron & Budd (Jul. 15, 2004; Jun. 17, 2004 and links therein). (Roger Parloff, “Stark Choices at the First Vioxx Trial”, Fortune, Jul. 15; Alex Berenson, “Contrary Tales of Vioxx Role in Texan’s Death”, New York Times, Jul. 15; Alex Berenson, “Jury Is Selected for Case Involving the Drug Vioxx”, New York Times, Jul. 14; Alex Berenson, “In First of Many Vioxx Cases, a Texas Widow Prepares to Take the Stand”, New York Times, Jul. 13; previous Overlawyered coverage: Jul. 1, Jul. 11 (includes my disclaimer), POL Jul. 15). Plaintiffs’ attorney Daniel Keller is liveblogging the trial, albeit not in the most objective fashion. Further coverage: Jul. 29, Aug. 19 ($253 million jury verdict).

Ernst v. Merck Vioxx trial to begin in Texas

Merck withdrew the painkiller Vioxx from the market when a study showed that it increased the risk of heart attack and stroke after eighteen months of use. 59-year-old Robert Ernst died suddenly of arrhythmia after taking Vioxx for seven months. No studies connect Vioxx to arrhythmia, but press coverage of the Brazoria County case, the first Vioxx products liability case to go to trial, has focused on the widow’s love for her husband rather than the lack of scientific controversy or asking why this case is going to trial at all. (Most press accounts repeat Carole Ernst’s claim that her husband was perfectly healthy; only the AP and USA Today mention in passing that Ernst’s autopsy showed atherosclerosis: two arteries partially blocked with plaque.)

Attorney Mark Lanier’s jaw-dropping theory, noted without rebuttal by the AP: “Mr. Lanier’s team says sudden death doesn’t leave enough time for the heart muscle to show whether Vioxx caused any damage.” The lack of evidence of damage is just proof of how insidious the drug is! As we noted on July 1, Lanier (Dec. 23, 2003) doesn’t seem interested in proving causation beyond innuendo. If you look through the press accounts, note especially the AP’s dramatically staged photo of Lanier in the New York Times: the case must be scientific because of all the pathology textbooks in the foreground of the shot! (Alex Berenson, “First Vioxx Suit: Entryway Into a Legal Labyrinth?”, NY Times, Jul. 11; Kristen Hays, “Jury selection to begin in Vioxx case”, AP, Jul. 10; Dana Calvo, “Vioxx Trial Could Set Precedent for Merck”, LA Times, Jul. 11; Richard Stewart, “Motion challenges plaintiff’s experts”, Houston Chronicle, Jul. 11; Kevin McCoy, “Merck to face first Vioxx trial before Texas jury next month”, USA Today, Jun. 30; Kristen Hays, “Lawyers gear up for first Vioxx suit against Merck”, AP/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jun. 28).

Read On…

“Merck on trial”

Writes Larry Ribstein (Jun. 24): “It’s bad enough the corporate fraud trials are about resentment, but now guilt by resentment seems to be spreading to products liability cases.” In a Vioxx trial expected to begin next month in South Texas, according to a WSJ report, folksy plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier is planning to lay on the exec-bashing with a trowel while going light on such matters as the explication of statistical significance in side-effect data. See Barbara Martinez, Lawyer Outlines Attack on Merck For Vioxx Trial”, W$J, Jun. 24. More: Point of Law, Feb. 8. Further coverage: Jul. 11, Jul. 15, Jul. 29, Aug. 19 ($253 million jury verdict).