Vioxx Maker Found Liable in Man's Death ($253 million in damages awarded)

Associated Press | August 19, 2005 | Kristen Hays and Theresa Agovino

[Knute]

Another win for the AMBULANCE CHASERS!

And those of us with osteoarthritis will likely never see any more beneficial drugs introduced... Everything is a "tradeoff". I would give up a few years of life to have those that I AM blessed with be characterized by fuller mobility and diminished pain levels.

[kcvl]

Carol Ernst, right, sits with her daughter Shawna Sherrill, left, prior to Sherrills' testimony in her mothers' case against Vioxx maker Merck Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2005, in Angleton, Texas. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)

Robert Ernst, 59, a produce manager at a Wal-Mart who ran marathons and also worked as a personal trainer, took Vioxx for eight months to ease pain in his hands. He died in his sleep one month shy of his first wedding anniversary.

When Carol Ernst realized something was wrong, she called Sherrill, an emergency room nurse, and Sherrill's husband, a flight nurse. They raced to the Ernsts' home where paramedics vigorously performed CPR. Sherrill said her mother overheard her telling Robert Ernst they were trying to help him, which gave Carol Ernst false hope that her husband might survive.

snip

Carol Ernst, a mother of four, had been divorced for more than 15 years when she met Robert Ernst. They dated for about three years before getting married. Sherrill described him as a soulmate who sparked a youthful exuberance her mother hadn't exhibited while raising the family alone.

Carol Ernst contends Vioxx caused his death in the first of more than 4,200 Vioxx-related state and federal lawsuits across the country to go before a jury.

snip

However, on Monday jurors saw the videotaped deposition of the coroner who performed that autopsy and testified that Robert Ernst probably died of a heart attack, but that his death was so sudden the heart didn't have time to show damage.

[kcvl]

Ken McCoin, an economist at Houston Baptist University, said he had calculated that Carol Ernst's economic losses from her husband's death -- his earning power since 2001, health benefits and household services, such as chores -- range from $212,486 through $327,247. The lower figure assumes Ernst's $21,700 salary at Wal-Mart would remain stagnant. The higher figure incorporates higher salaries he had previously as a restaurant manager.

Also Wednesday jurors viewed snippets of a videotaped deposition from Dr. Brent Wallace, who prescribed Vioxx to Robert Ernst. Wallace was originally sued alongside Merck, but was later dropped as a defendant.

[kcvl]

And those of us with osteoarthritis will likely never see any more beneficial drugs introduced... Everything is a "tradeoff". I would give up a few years of life to have those that I AM blessed with be characterized by fuller mobility and diminished pain levels.

Exactly!

Once the ambulance chasers get through ruining doctors, pharmacists, drug companies, hospitals, etc., I wonder where they think people can go for help? As if they gave a damn.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Boy, you guys have no faith in the jury system.

Color me guilty. The original intent of a "jury of your peers" has long ago gone by the board. It is now a "jury of the envious big business haters" who are picked and tailored to fit the trial lawyers needs. The media spend a good bit of time with slanted reports to help with the lawyers' jury nullification. Truth and justice is a rare experience in our courts today.

Maybe Merck was negligent and that's the reason for the award?

Simply not the case. It is blatant greed and stupidity.

[conserv13]

I wasn't on the jury and didn't hear the arguments from both sides. The jury did and they made a decision based on that. People here can disagree with the decision, I disagree with it too, but we weren't in the jury.

[Vicomte13]

"It still took a good lawyer to convince the jury!"

Sure, but that's called "Doing his job", and generally when we hire folks to do work for us, we want them to put forward their absolute best efforts for us and "Git 'er done."

Plaintiff's lawyers clearly did for their client what they got paid for. They did their job. If there's a problem with the American legal system (and there is!), the solution is not to expect lawyers to stop doing their jobs at their level best. That's what their clients pay them to do, after all. It has to come from the lawmaking side, changing the rules of the game. And it has to come from juries exercising their brains.

[Vicomte13]

"It's about greedy trial lawyers..."

As opposed to greedy pharmaceutical companies, or greedy capitalists down on Wall Street, or greedy restaurant owners who charge $6.00 for a $0.10 egg...?

A lawyers' JOB is to represent his clients' interests to the best of his ability. That's WHY he gets paid. Would you want to hire a lawyer and have him go into a Hamlet-like soliloquy of doubt about the merits of your case before the jury?
You'd sue him for malpractice if he did!

The problem in America is with the fundamental structure of the legal system itself. The problem is the Common Law, not the lawyers who operate in that system. And the Common Law has been just this bad for centuries too. Read Lewis Carroll. Anglo-Saxon law has always been based on clever advocacy and unpredictable results wrought by personality. The problem is not the lawyers: it is the fundamental flaws in the American system of justice itself, which have been there since before the beginning. English law always had these flaws too. It just used to be that the bias in courts was always the other way, always in favor of the wealthy landowner or powerful interest and against the individual. Now the abuse is in the other direction. It's always been this bad. Americans have never showed the slightest desire to change their legal system to something better, like blue ribbon juries of experts in a field, for example, or panels of judges in trial court, to avoid the capriciousness of one single judge. Pretty basic things, really. Americans have no appetite for any of it.

So, the system is as it is, and as it always has been.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

People here can disagree with the decision, I disagree with it too, but we weren't in the jury.

I think we are making separate points based on the same case. Of course you are right but so are the rest of us.