Vioxx Second Lawsuit - Merck Not Liable

Lawsuits against Merck over the use of Vioxx did not always go in favour of the plaintiffs.

Shortly after the first trial in August 2005 in Texas (the Ernst case), the second Vioxx case was decided by a jury in November 2005. The case was heard in New Jersey.

The trial involved weeks' of testimony, dealing with the drug's risks. Much of the evidence was similar to that heard in the Texas case.

The plaintiff Frederick Humeston was a 60-year old postal worker who had a heart attack, which he survived, in September 2001 after taking Vioxx for less than two months.

The jury were asked to decide whether Merck failed to warn of known risks, whether it led to the heart attack and whether Merck misled doctors about Vioxx.

The jury found in favour of Merck. One juror later indicated that they decided that Humeston's heart attack was more likely due to stress and anxiety and not Vioxx. There was also evidence suggesting the Humeston was prone to complaining about his workload, while his employer was also investigating him for suspected malingering.

Merck was obviously relieved by this verdict, but numerous other cases were already looming.

Lawsuit Against Doctors For $67 Million For John Ritter's Death

The lawsuit is brought by Amy Yasbeck, John Ritter's widow, against two doctors for wrongful death and malpractice. She is suing for $67 million in damages.

Ritter collapsed in the studio in September 2003 while filming for his TV show 8 Simple Rules. He was immediately taken to the hospital across the road, but died hours later.

He was treated for a heart attack. It appears however that his sudden collapse was due to a pre-existing condition known as an aortic dissection. This was not discovered in time when he was receiving treatment in the hospital.

The suit claims that had a chest x-ray been done, that would have led to the right diagnosis and the correct treatment would have saved Ritter's life. The defence says that he was suffering an acute heart attack when the cardiologist arrived, and all was done that could have been done to save him.

The other doctor sued is the radiologist who had previously carried out a body scan on Ritter. It is claimed that he failed to warn Ritter of the potentially fatal condition.

The damages are based on the expected earnings that Ritter would have got from his TV series. The defence rejects this as speculative as there was no certainty that the show would have continued to be successful.

Mesothelioma and Asbestos

Asbestos

Cases related to asbestos stem from the widespread use of asbestos in and about the 60's and 70's. Asbestos was found to be an efficient material against fire. Its then highly valued fire-proofing or fire-retardant quality made it a popular substance to be used in construction.

Like many drugs and pharmaceuticals, in respect of which many cases have been brought, asbestos was intended to benefit rather than to harm. Asbestos was designed and meant as a safeguard against fire.

Because of its widespread use over an extensive period of time, not only were those who were directly engaged in the manufacture of asbestos products, but many others especially those in the construction field, became exposed to it. Also at risk were those who were involved in the manufacture of industrial heating equipment like furnaces, and even household electrical products.

Mesothelioma

The most serious, but less common, injury caused by exposure to asbestos is mesothelioma, which is death-inducing cancer. Others forms of cancer are also caused. Another serious condition is asbestosis, a lung condition which can be seriously disabling and will in time also lead to death. The latency for the onset of disease can be as long as forty years.

The largest awards have generally been made in mesothlioma cases, followed by other malignancy claims, asbestosis and non-disabling conditions.

The main categories of complaint by plaintiffs are that they became exposed due to failure of warning of the dangers of asbestos, and that inadequate protection was given to those working with or around asbestos.

Ref: www.rand.org