Jury Awards $253M to Widow in Vioxx Death

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Merck has known the dangers for over 10 years on Vioxx. Some even saying they are guilty of murder. W.R. Grace is another example. These companies killed people for money so I find these multi-million dollar awards justified.

-------------------------------------
By KRISTEN HAYS and THERESA AGOVINO, AP Business Writer 12 minutes ago

ANGLETON, Texas - A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable for the death of a man who took the once-popular painkiller
Vioxx.

Jurors awarded Robert Ernst's widow, Carol, $253.4 million in damages, which is a combination of his lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager, mental anguish, loss of companionship and punitive damages. In Texas, punitive damages are capped at twice the amount of economic damages — lost pay — and up to $750,000 on top of non-economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of companionship.

The case drew national attention from pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers, stock analysts and arbitragers as a signal of what lies ahead for Merck, which has vowed to fight the more than 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the country. Merck said it plans to appeal.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...vioxx_trial_35

[Rohirrim]

I'm guessing $253 mil is chickenfeed compared to Mercks profits from Vioxx. If they can get these cases reduced on appeal, they come out ahead. And that's all they really care about.

[Rascal]

it will be reduced by the judge but Merck deserves to be bent over the barrel and shot.

My Dad is a pharmacists and for years he would tell people not to get Vioxx when they came in. Merck threatened to sue him last year and he said he had evidence supporting his statements and was only serving in his customers best interests...they backed off a couple of weeks later when it went public about Vioxx dangers.

I believe the federal cap limit is 11 times as determined by the State Farm V Utah case.

[Mile High Shack]

more than likely, the cost of potential lawsuits was written into their cost, so yeah

I'm sure they still made out like bandits

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

more than likely, the cost of potential lawsuits was written into their cost, so yeah

I'm sure they still made out like bandits

Caps on lawsuits are definetly wrong. These cases show this.

Losing 8% (3.6 billion) today on their share price does hurt though.

[Rascal]

I disagree Slug there need to be some caps. There are some situations were a product, despite the best intent of the company, goes bad and kills somebody. The company shouldn't have to pay so much as to go out of business. I think it should be allowed to go up to the federal level (depending on the situation of course). Not saying I'm happy with them only having to pay that little amount, I'm just saying you need to look at the bigger picture.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

I disagree Slug there need to be some caps. There are some situations were a product, despite the best intent of the company, goes bad and kills somebody. The company shouldn't have to pay so much as to go out of business. I think it should be allowed to go up to the federal level (depending on the situation of course). Not saying I'm happy with them only having to pay that little amount, I'm just saying you need to look at the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is large corporations can bottom line illegal and even murder into their books when maximum caps are in place. They can't do that if they know they would ACTUALLY be held responsible when they're caught killing and maiming people.

[Rascal]

But then you are going to have some company make a defective product (unknowingly and never knew about it) and then the jury is going to make them pay some huge amount because of the no caps effectively putting them out of business and causing a lot of good workers to lose their jobs.

If they had a tier system in place I would support that, but not an uncapped amount.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

The bigger picture is large corporations can bottom line illegal and even murder into their books when maximum caps are in place. They can't do that if they know they would ACTUALLY be held responsible when they're caught killing and maiming people.

If they really did cover up the risks, the individuals that did it and sanctioned it need to be punished. The company's insurance company will make a settlement with the victims.

The problem with the large corporate fines is that it hurts innocent stockholders. If you own any mutual funds or have a pension plan, there is a good chance Merck is in your portfolio so you will be paying the price for what a few individuals did without your knowledge.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm guessing $253 mil is chickenfeed compared to Mercks profits from Vioxx. If they can get these cases reduced on appeal, they come out ahead. And that's all they really care about.

Yep.

$253 million is just the cost of doing business for these crooks.

Good thing they have a corporatist whore like GeeDubya doing their bidding with regard to "tort reform," eh?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Big Guy

If they really did cover up the risks, the individuals that did it and sanctioned it need to be punished. The company's insurance company will make a settlement with the victims.

The problem with the large corporate fines is that it hurts innocent stockholders. If you own any mutual funds or have a pension plan, there is a good chance Merck is in your portfolio so you will be paying the price for what a few individuals did without your knowledge.

The insurers aren't paying a dime since there are over 4000 lawsuits pending.
This is the first to come to verdict. With caps in place in TX the max award is a little over 2 million for killing her husband.

It has been known even before Vioxx was brought to market that it was too risky. If you're part of company matched mutual fund that includes companies like Grace and Merck and others that have these well known dangers of risk, I would demand they move my money to other funds.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Good thing they have a corporatist whore like GeeDubya doing their bidding with regard to "tort reform," eh?

As opposed to "lawyerist" whore Clinton, who never let the good of the nation stand in the way of what was good for the TLA.

This is how it works:

1) Democrats get laws passed that increase liabilities;
2) Attorneys file class-action suits seeking multimillion-dollar damages;
3) Lawsuits succeed, victims get pittance, attorneys get millions;
4) Attorneys give money to the TLA;
5) The TLA gives millions to the Democrats;
6) Go back to step one and repeat.

If you don't think this is true, you're a naive SOB.

[W*GS]

So what's the value of a human life?

[elsid13]

There risk with use of any drug, It not like the researcher at Merck or FDA went out of their way to kill someone. Somehow I think that lawsuits like this are out of line.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by elsid13

There risk with use of any drug, It not like the researcher at Merck or FDA went out of their way to kill someone. Somehow I think that lawsuits like this are out of line.

What the defense was able to prove in this case is that Merck knew what the risks were (there was ample documentation in the case) and failed to pass on that knowledge to physicians and pharmacists.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by elsid13

There risk with use of any drug, It not like the researcher at Merck or FDA went out of their way to kill someone. Somehow I think that lawsuits like this are out of line.

Mark Lanier, (plaintiff's attorney) was just on CNBC. This guy is sharp!!!
Listening to him talk was both entertaining and enlightening.
Merck heads emailed another dept. and told them to suppress evidence showing Vioxx caused heart attacks in 1% of all people who took their drug for 4 months so they could make another 230 million. Incredible gall and arrogance!

He says there will be over 50,000 lawsuits filed against them now. And get this, Merck is thinking of trying to get Vioxx back onto the market!

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

If you're part of company matched mutual fund that includes companies like Grace and Merck and others that have these well known dangers of risk, I would demand they move my money to other funds.

That sounds nice but mutual fund companies trade daily, so you never know when they own those stocks unless it is specifically exclude them in their prospectus. The fund managers job is to be agnostic of the actual companies they trade and make trades that make money for the fund. From some of your earlier comments, I am guessing you are a union memeber with a union pension fund. If that is the case you have even less visibility into the investments in your retirement.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Big Guy

That sounds nice but mutual fund companies trade daily, so you never know when they own those stocks unless it is specifically exclude them in their prospectus. The fund managers job is to be agnostic of the actual companies they trade and make trades that make money for the fund. From some of your earlier comments, I am guessing you are a union member with a union pension fund. If that is the case you have even less visibility into the investments in your retirement.

Mutual fund companies do listen to the companies that hire them to invest their employee's money. Any fund manager worth a nickel will flee these kinds of companies before these lawsuits come to fruition anyway if they lack good sound financial principals like Merck did. They also won't (shouldn't be anyway) invest money into companies who could be facing potential problems in the future.

I do have a pension and annuity through an international union but know where that money is being invested. I also have a couple other mutual funds that I picked because I knew where my money would be going. Fund mangers should be eager to talk to you about your money, if they aren't find another one if possible.

[bendog]

Well, Merck DID go out of its way to kill people. I hate lawsuits though, and the money could be better used, but trusting the govt to monitor the drug companies obviously hasn't worked.

Still I took vioox irregularly. My plantar will 'erupt' maybe 5-6 times a year. If I hit it early and often with vioox, I'd be fine in 3 days, week at most. Mobic is working ok, but not quite as good. I think the vioox was safe for me. Though my late father in law died of a brain stem stroke, and he was on a daily dose for over a year.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by bendog

Well, Merck DID go out of its way to kill people. I hate lawsuits though, and the money could be better used, but trusting the govt to monitor the drug companies obviously hasn't worked.

Still I took vioox irregularly. My plantar will 'erupt' maybe 5-6 times a year. If I hit it early and often with vioox, I'd be fine in 3 days, week at most. Mobic is working ok, but not quite as good. I think the vioox was safe for me. Though my late father in law died of a brain stem stroke, and he was on a daily dose for over a year.

Your father in law's family is probably due some compensation from Merck (according to Lanier). He also said Merck will wait until all the lawsuits are filed and then settle them.

[bendog]

My FIL wouldn't have wanted to sue; he was an ornery guy, lol. We let it go. Neither Mrs Dog nor little girl dog could deal with it. And, honestly, he was in such bad shap with having veins in his legs replaced, it would have been something else. My MIL needed a psychiatric nursing home to deal with her mental and physical limitations, and my FIL wouldn't have made it. We were hopeful she'd go into the nursing home permantently and FIL could live with us, but it didn't work out.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by bendog

My FIL wouldn't have wanted to sue; he was an ornery guy, lol. We let it go. Neither Mrs Dog nor little girl dog could deal with it. And, honestly, he was in such bad shap with having veins in his legs replaced, it would have been something else. My MIL needed a psychiatric nursing home to deal with her mental and physical limitations, and my FIL wouldn't have made it. We were hopeful she'd go into the nursing home permantently and FIL could live with us, but it didn't work out.

That's tough to deal with! Sorry to hear about their hard road!

[bendog]

no problem. He died three years ago in March. I can't believe Mrs Dog's mother is still alive. She'll most likely wear out this winter some time. Hope so anyway.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cue W*GS defending Merck and calling its critics a bunch of crybabies...

3...2...1...