Vioxx Appeal Verdicts Are a Slap in the Face to Consumers

From the AP:

“Appeals courts in New Jersey and Texas on Thursday scrapped verdicts against the drugmaker Merck & Co. Inc. stemming from some of the earliest trials involving its once popular painkiller Vioxx.

A Texas court reversed a $26 million verdict against the drug company stemming from the first trial. The court found no evidence that Robert Ernst suffered a fatal heart problem from a blood clot triggered by Vioxx. He had been taking the now-withdrawn drug for eight months before being stricken in May 2001.”

Despite the fact that Merck pulled Vioxx off the shelves voluntarily after its own studies found that the drug doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke, the company refuses to accept responsibility for the lives it has claimed. After the Texas appeal verdict, it’s painfully clear that our conservative courts are more than happy to protect deep pocketed pharmaceutical companies at the risk of consumers’ lives.

A more in-depth discussion of the appeals can be found on Texaslawyers.com. Mark Lanier, attorney for the plaintiff, found that the appeals court judges opinion is "judicial activism for corporate America." This type of judgement from Texas’ higher courts isn’t unusual.

Houston plaintiffs lawyer Tommy Fibich, a partner in Fibich Hampton & Leebron who has settled all of his 250 or so Vioxx suits, says the 14th Court opinion in Ernst is a reflection of Texas' conservative courts.

"They look askance at every plaintiff's verdict. . . . Mark Lanier knows the rules on causation, and he and I thought he had met those under the Texas rules," Fibich says. "Our courts are conservative. It's like they try to find a reason to reverse a case these days."

Fibich says it's a sad day when appeals courts "substitute themselves for the judge who tried the case and the jury who heard the evidence determination."

The Houston Chronicle echoes these sentiments in an editorial on May 31, 2008, claiming that the "Houston appellate court usurps role of trial judge and jury."

What’s it going to take to make sure consumers are safe?