corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 7094

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Charatan F.
US judge dismisses 50m dollars damages in Vioxx lawsuit.
BMJ 2006 Sep 9; 333:(7567):516
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7567/516-c


Abstract:

A New Orleans federal judge has thrown out a $50m award made against the drug maker Merck after a former agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had a heart attack after taking Vioxx (rofecoxib). The jury’s conclusion on Merck’s liability was reasonable, but its compensatory damage assessment was not, said Judge Eldon Fallon.

In his decision, announced on 30 August, the judge said that the $50m (£26m; €39m) compensatory damages awarded to Gerald Barnett was “excessive under any conceivable substantive standard of excessiveness.” He ruled that a new trial on all damages was necessary.

Judge Fallon held that the plaintiff’s past and future medical bills, pain and suffering, and other intangible losses were legitimate reasons for compensation. But because Mr Barnett has retired he cannot recover lost wages or for lost earning capacity. “Mr Barnett has returned to many of his daily activities. He may have lost 9-10 years of life expectancy,” Judge Fallon wrote.

The retired agent, aged 62 years, had a heart attack in 2002 after taking Vioxx for 31 months. Earlier in August, a federal jury awarded $50m in compensatory damages and $1m in punitive damages. The jury found Merck at fault for misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact regarding Vioxx’s safety to Mr Barnett’s doctors.

“We are pleased the court agreed that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive and bore no relationship to the evidence presented in trial and that the court overturned the punitive damages, as well,” Merck’s trial lawyer Phil Beck said in a statement.

Merck is facing about 14 200 product liability lawsuits over Vioxx, and has set aside almost $1bn for litigation. Since Vioxx claims began going to trial, in July 2005, Merck has won five verdicts and lost four. The company has vowed to fight each case separately.

Mr Barnett’s leading lawyer, Mark Robinson, told the BMJ that the judge was not overturning the jury’s findings of Merck’s negligence but its assessment of damages. He pointed out that the new trial, for which the judge had called, would only adjust the proportion of compensatory to punitive damages.

Keywords:
Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors/adverse effects Drug Industry/legislation & jurisprudence* Humans Lactones/adverse effects Liability, Legal/economics* Louisiana Myocardial Infarction/chemically induced Sulfones/adverse effects safety litigation

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909