Quantcast

Texas plaintiffs seek over $1 bln in Vioxx case

April 20, 2006

By Jeff Franks

RIO GRANDE CITY, Texas (Reuters) – Attorneys suing Merck &
Co. Inc. for the death of a 71-year-old man who took Vioxx
asked a Texas jury on Thursday to award more than $1 billion in
damages, but Merck lawyers said the pharmaceuticals company
should not have to pay anything.

The damage request includes $22 million for mental anguish
and personal loss and $1 billion in punitive damages, which
punish a defendant for wrong behavior.

The latter are capped at only $750,000 by Texas law,
meaning the plaintiffs could collect no more than that even if
the jury awarded the full $1 billion.

The two sides squared off in closing arguments of the
latest lawsuit charging that Merck did not disclose the dangers
of its now-withdrawn pain medicine and a man died as a result.

The jury in the trial that started January 24 was to begin
deliberating later in the afternoon whether Merck is
responsible for the death of Leonel Garza, who died of a heart
attack on April 21, 2001 after taking Vioxx for arthritis for
less than a month.

This is the fifth of more than 10,000 Vioxx lawsuits filed
against the New Jersey-based drugmaker to go to a jury. The
cases are being closely watched to determine how much the Vioxx
issue ultimately will cost the company.

Merck withdrew the $2.5 billion-a-year drug from the market
in September 2004 after a study showed it doubled heart attack
and stroke risk for patients who took it 18 months or more.

Garza family attorney Joe Escobedo told the jury that
Merck’s greed killed Garza because the company knew the dangers
of Vioxx as early as 2000 but did not reveal them because it
did not want to hurt sales.

“Why didn’t they put the warning on the label? Because of
money,” Escobedo said. “Everyone in this courtroom should be
offended that they put money first.”

He said studies have shown that Vioxx can cause blood clots
that lead to heart attacks starting almost with the first
pills.

“It doesn’t take 18 months; it doesn’t take 18 days. The
results were immediate,” Escobedo said, citing one of many
studies on the drug.

He asked for $1 billion in punitive damages because he said
it would send a message to Merck, which both sides agreed
before arguments has a net worth of $17.3 billion.

“You have the power to tell them ‘don’t bring a drug that
causes death and misery back on the market,”‘ Escobedo said.

The other $22 million in damages would be to compensate the
Garza family for the anguish and pain of losing their
patriarch, he said. Texas law does not cap so-called
“compensatory” damages.

Merck lawyer Richard Josephson countered that Garza died of
chronic heart disease he had had since 1978, not because of
Vioxx.

“You’ll see that Mr. Garza’s time was up,” he said. “The
idea that Mr. Garza was in good health is science fiction. He
was a serious candidate for a heart attack.”

Based on medical records, Josephson also questioned whether
Garza took Vioxx more than a week and whether he took it at all
after April 3.

“If he stopped taking it on April 3 it would have been out
of his blood April 8 and Vioxx could not have been in any way
responsible for a heart attack on April 21,” he said.

Josephson did not address the issue of whether Merck
withheld information on the dangers of Vioxx and was late in
pulling it from the market, but said the FDA even today
considers drugs such as Vioxx safe for short-term use.

The trial is taking place in Starr County, which is poor
and heavily Hispanic and considered by legal experts to be a
friendly jurisdiction for plaintiffs. Rio Grande City is
located on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The case, which has moved slowly because state District
Judge Alex Gabert could hold court only one week a month due to
other duties, follows a New Jersey trial this month in which
$13.5 million damages were awarded to a 77-year-old man who had
a heart attack after taking Vioxx more than four years.

But it was a mixed verdict for Merck because the jury also
found that Vioxx did not cause the heart attack of a second
defendant in the trial.

Some analysts said the $13.5 million award may signal that
Merck’s Vioxx legal costs ultimately will approach the $21
billion in charges Wyeth has taken for its ill-fated “fen-phen”
diet drugs.

Merck has said it will appeal the New Jersey decision, as
it will an August 2005 case in which a jury in Angleton, Texas,
near Houston awarded $253 million in total damages. Texas law
will drastically reduce that award, regardless of the outcome
of the appeal.

Merck has won two other trials, including the only federal
case so far, which was tried in New Orleans in February.

The drug company has said it plans to fight every lawsuit
and settle none.


Source: reuters



comments powered by Disqus