stupid jury

[briannell]

excessive and stupid on the part of the jury. Not heartless, give the family compensation, but this is over kill.



Jury Awards Widow $253.4M in Vioxx Trial By KRISTEN HAYS and THERESA AGOVINO, AP Business Writer
59 minutes ago



A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable Friday for the death of a man who took the once-popular painkiller Vioxx, awarding his widow $253.4 million in damages in the first of thousands of lawsuits pending across the country

A seven-man, five-woman jury deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before returning the verdict. Merck said it plans to appeal.

Mrs. Ernst began to cry when the verdict was read while her attorneys jumped up and shouted, "Amen!"

"Anyone who said they are too small town or won't understand, they are crazy," said Mrs. Ernst's lawyer, Mark Lanier. "They know truth and they know justice."

Jurors in the semi-rural county rejected Merck's argument that Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia.

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 should come to the table and accept responsibility," Lanier said.

The damages award combines Robert Ernst's lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager, mental anguish, loss of companionship and punitive damages. He was 59 when he died.

Merck said it was disappointed at the verdict and that it is looking at various bases for appeal.

"We believe that we have strong points to raise on appeal and are hopeful that the appeals process will correct the verdict," said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck, in a statement. "Our appeal is about fundamental rights to a fair trial."

If the first wave of verdicts go against Merck, experts predict it will open the floodgates for more lawsuits and could force the drug company to settle cases. Analysts have speculated Merck's liability could reach $18 billion.

If Merck prevails in future cases, however, lawsuits could fade away, easing some of the pressure on its stock.

Another trial is set to begin in New Jersey, where Merck is based, next month, and the first federal trial in New Orleans is slated for late November.

Merck pulled Vioxx, a $2.5 billion seller, from the market in September 2004 when a long-term study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or longer.




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments

[Hello Kitty]

[quote="briannell"]excessive and stupid on the part of the jury. Not heartless, give the family compensation, but this is over kill.



Jury Awards Widow $253.4M in Vioxx Trial By KRISTEN HAYS and THERESA AGOVINO, AP Business Writer
59 minutes ago


I think Griz law explained this once already. They have to make the company hurt in the pocket book so the punishment stings. If they only had to pay five million it would be no skin off their backs.

[Grizlaw]

I think Griz law explained this once already. They have to make the company hurt in the pocket book so the punishment stings. If they only had to pay five million it would be no skin off their backs.

Yeah, that's the theory behind punitive damages -- if the objective is to punish the company, then the award has to be large enough that the company will care about it. There are a lot of questions about whether it is good social policy, though, and I can see both sides of the argument -- in other words, I'm just stating the rationale, not necessarily agreeing with it 100%.

The big question I have about this case is whether the company's conduct was heinous enough that punitive damages were appropriate in the first place. I haven't really followed the facts of the case closely enough to have an opinion on this one -- if all they did was market a drug that turned out to be harmful, then I might feel that punitive damages are inappropriate (assuming they complied with all regulatory requirements, etc.). On the other hand, if there is evidence that they knew of the harmful effects and covered it up, then I say let 'em pay.

[briannell]

GL-

I owe you that company name for crabcakes, it is Chesapeake Gourmet, I think, i'll get that info from my dad, he sends the stuff to us. it's great, and the lump meat melts in your mouth MMMMMMM.

http://www.cbgourmet.com/

[Hello Kitty]

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[Grizlaw]

A little more info about this verdict...

According to today's New York Times, the Vioxx jury award consisted of $24.5 million in actual damages (economic damages and mental anguish), and $229 million in punitive damages. According to the Times, Texas law will cap the punitive portion of the verdict at $1.6 million. Thus, while the jury's verdict certainly sends a message to Vioxx about the jury's disapproval of the company's actions, the award in reality will be reduced to at least $26.1 million on appeal.

[El_Gato]

According to a quick blurb I saw on TV last night, there are potentially THOUSANDS of cases ready to file against Merck over Vioxx. If a majority of them succeed, it's hard to believe the company could survive.

My questions are this: How does the FDA fit into this? Don't they have to approve all new drugs? With a verdict against Vioxx, won't some of these plaintiffs also go after the FDA?

[Grizlaw]

My questions are this: How does the FDA fit into this? Don't they have to approve all new drugs? With a verdict against Vioxx, won't some of these plaintiffs also go after the FDA?

That's a complicated question, and one that I could not answer without doing some research. As a federal agency, the FDA has sovereign immunity under the Constitution -- it can only be sued if Congress has enacted a statute specifically allowing such a suit. I am not sure whether such a statute exists or not -- there are federal statutes allowing civil suits against federal agencies in many different contexts, but I do not know whether there is one that applies to suits against the FDA for grants of approval for new drugs. (It would seem logical that such a statute *should* exist, but I don't know offhand.)

If there is such a statute, then yes, I would think some of these plaintiffs would sue the FDA as well -- although any such suit would be subject to whatever limitations are imposed by the statute.