Posted on 08/19/2005 4:51:04 PM PDT by BenLurkin
ANGLETON, Texas - Merck & Co.'s first wrongful-death verdict over its painkiller Vioxx came in a case that was not seen as especially strong, and is likely to inspire thousands of more suits on top of the 4,200 already filed against the drug maker, analysts say.
Analysts have already estimated Merck's liability could be as high as $18 billion and that number could now rise.
Merck & Co.'s stock sank $2.35, or 7.7 percent, to close at $28.06. The jury awarded $253.4 million in damages to a widow of a man who died in 2001 of heart arrhythmia, or irregular heart beat, after taking Vioxx for around eight months. The company plans to appeal.
Merck yanked the popular pain reliever from the market last September after a study found it doubled patients' risks of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months.
The loss is especially damaging because Merck initially had been expected to win what was considered a weak case because no studies have linked Vioxx to arrhythmia. And the next two cases Merck faces appear somewhat stronger, according to experts.
"If they can't win the weak ones, what does that say about the strong ones?" asked Anthony Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.
Analyst Jason Napodano of Zacks Investment Research said now anyone taking Vioxx with any type of a cardiovascular problem will feel emboldened to file a lawsuit. So far, more than 4,000 cases have been filed, some presumably stronger than the Angleton case. Merck has set aside $675 million to fight them.
"A Merck loss means that the number of cases against them increases tenfold," predicted Napodano.
If this verdict marks the beginning of a losing streak, Merck may back away from its pledge to try each case individually and not settle any, experts said. But they said a rash of verdicts would be necessary before the company changes its strategy.
"Merck says there will be no surrender. But you have to wonder if that will be true," said Sebok.
The plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Lanier, attempted to convince the Angleton jury that the plaintiff's husband, Bob Ernst, died of a heart attack at the age of 59. Lanier flew Dr. Maria Araneta, who performed Ernst's autopsy, in from the United Arab Emirates, where she had moved since performing the autopsy in 2001. She testified that although her report said Ernst died of an arrhythmia, it was likely he had a heart attack.
"I'm not changing my opinion, I'm just explaining it further," Araneta testified. "That's the autopsy report, but it's not the end of the story."
She said Ernst probably had a heart attack because a clot blocked the blood flow in an artery that was already clogged with plaque. She also said CPR conducted on Ernst probably dislodged the clot.
Lanier's case provided other plaintiff lawyers with a blueprint for how to prove Merck behaved irresponsibly in promoting Vioxx, said Benjamin Zipursky, a professor at Fordham University School of Law.
"A Merck loss means the jury believes the plaintiff story about the company's wrongful conduct," said Zipursky. "That carries into the future."
Merck would be foolish to dismiss Lanier's win as a fluke resulting from a talented Texas lawyer working his abundant Southern charm in what is considered a plaintiff-friendly venue, attorneys warned.
"Mark Lanier is an extraordinarily gifted attorney. But there are a lot of other gifted plaintiff attorneys and other favorable venues," said Charles Rhodes, a law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston. "Maybe Merck will get less damages outside of Southeast Texas, but there will still be damages."
Next month, Merck faces a trail in Atlantic City, N.J., brought by Michael Humeston, a former postal worker, who had a heart attack in 2001. Humeston's lawyer, Chris Seeger, said Humeston still has lingering effects from the heart attack. Vioxx has been directly linked to heart attacks.
In November, the first of 1,800 federal cases will be heard in New Orleans. The case concerns Richard Irvin, a Florida man who was taking Vioxx for a month before his 2001 death from a blood clot in his heart. Scientists have speculated that Vioxx causes cardiovascular problems because it blocks a substance which keeps blood from clotting.
Hey...once the drug is pulled....The F'ng Lawsuits should STOP!
This isn't justice...it is shark feeding time! this doesn't help anyone's safety....it just raises my drug costs and insurance costs. Way to go Liberal entitlement As@*holes!!!
"A Merck loss means that the number of cases against them increases tenfold," predicted Napodano."
Cool, then maybe they will stop trying to shove their dope on the public.
Jenny
No offense, but you are either ignorant or a complete fool. The "big bad" pharmaceuticals have done more to cure disease and extend quality life than all the physicians, nurses, government health programs, and lawyers combined.
But with this ruling, who on earth would not pull their money out of investing in the company? Before today, Merck had a 33% drop in value. Today it dropped substantially. Retaining 66% is better than holding on and loosing it all.
So the effect of this ruling is to run up the cost of medicine and enhance the incomes of lawyers. But the health of the public is not what is at issue here. This was punative.
When Merck files Chapter 11 or worse goes out of buisness, there will still be drugs, but they will be just that much more expensive.
We all loose with this type of judgement.
But with this ruling, who on earth would not pull their money out of investing in the company? Before today, Merck had a 33% drop in value. Today it dropped substantially. Retaining 66% is better than holding on and loosing it all.
So the effect of this ruling is to run up the cost of medicine and enhance the incomes of lawyers. But the health of the public is not what is at issue here. This was punative.
When Merck files Chapter 11 or worse goes out of buisness, there will still be drugs, but they will be just that much more expensive.
We all loose with this type of judgement.
This is bloodlust. When I saw that judgement today I cringed. Of course, the lawyers will make out but the rest of us will pay, pay, pay for higher drug costs. Worse yet, research for newer drugs may be stalled or even stagnate to the point of us regressing. This is disgusting. One of my former co-workers, a great attorney, always used to tell me that everything that causes us all these big hassles can always be traced back to a lawyer. She hated it too.
Wake up girlie girl.
IMO, if Merck loses another suit with another judgement of this magnitude, they will declare bankruptcy...they will have no other option.
This whole thing is ridiculous....$253 MILLION? What are these people thinking?
Where did you get the information that Merck is going to file chapter 11?
This is the first I heard of it.
Good points.
Thanks.
I agree....Jenny , that was an incredibly stupid response.
It is very simple. The FDA reviews the drugs. They give the company an "ok, go ahead..sell it!" When some more info comes out, and there are questions regarding safety..the drug is pulled. The FDA and a panel of scientists review the clinical issues, make a ruling and the drug either goes back on the market (perhaps with extra cautions) or gets pulled.
END OF F' ING STORY!
No hysterical jury trials. No greedy lawyers. No greedy patients' families in the wings. the result: more, better, safer meds...with lower cost and no impact on our insurance rates.
Adding to your post..see mine #16.
Are these people also voting? I fear for the Republic.
"Where did you get the information that Merck is going to file chapter 11? "
It was an easy extrapolation, methinks. The verdict will attract every John Edwards in the country to file suit......How fast do you think pharmaceutical companies can move offshore? I think we're about to find out. There will be nothing but marketing shell companies left in the US.
That's an absolute certainty. My cubicle is directly across from our corporate legal officer and... um... I've said too much already.
Did you see her attorney?
Holy crap, we are so screwed; he was orgasmic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.