Another Merck win

Jeez Louise! Are the plaintiff lawyers representing Vioxx clients out of their minds? Out of the tens of thousands of Vioxx lawsuits that have been filed, with all the clinical data showing that the pain-killer probably injured or killed lots of people, can't they find one decent plaintiff? It's not enough that most of the Vioxx vics who've lost at trial have been elderly obese people with histories of heart disease. But now the lawyers have to come up with an alleged former cocaine user. At least he was a little younger than the others. But still, on top of the alleged drug use, the guy suffered from diabetes and high cholesterol and had a family history of heart disease, all well-known risk factors for the heart attack he blamed on the pain killer.

OK, sure, given his history, he definitely shouldn't have been taking Vioxx. But did his lawyers really think the jury would overlook all the other contributing factors, or did they just not do their homework? Brother. No wonder tort reformers have so much material to work with. At the same time, though, these cases do sort of reaffirm my faith in the legal system. For all the scorn heaped on American juries by those very same tort reformers, it's clear from cases like these that the average citizens sitting in the jury box are doing their jobs quite well. ..

Comments

[JMG]

What's your point, that it's OK to kill people who use coke? If so, that'll reduce the number of lawyers nicely.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that physicians and drug makers have a duty of care for all their patients, including those who do not present one specific malady but are otherwise perfectly healthy. The cocaine may make him an unsympathetic plaintiff, but there is an argument that the cocaine was simply ANOTHER reason that it was unreasonable to put this guy on Vioxx, and the system failed him even worse. Millions of people use illegal drugs and doctors and drug makers know that; they are irresponsible if their protocols don't call for warning patients who may be using illegal drugs about contraindications.

[RAS]

This case was a federal court case that is stuck in the MDL. This case was brought to trial because of the way the Judge has structured the disposition of these cases. Merck gets to pick one to try, then the Plaintiffs get to pick one to try...out of literally thousands of cases. Not suprisingly, this is one that Merck picked.

[Ted]

Of course, if, as is the case, the guy doesn't tell his doctor he's using cocaine, it kind of prevents his doctor from assessing the interaction.

[Elliot]

"What's your point, that it's OK to kill people who use coke?"

If it was the coke and not the Vioxx that gave him his heart attack, why should Merck pay? Why didn't he sue the coke dealer?

[Elliot]

Another Merck win

...and today (Dec. 15) brings yet *another* Merck win, in state court in Alabama.

[JMG]

Did the Doc ask???

Funny, most people will tell their doc that they use coke in response to prompts such as "I'm thinking about prescribing something that would be risky if you had a history of using cocaine. Should I look for an alternative?"

[Aaron]

That of course inspires the question, is there any evidence of an interaction between Vioxx and cocaine? If not, then the question would be irrelevant.