Originally published September 8 2005
Merck's legal actions may have to change as verdicts roll in
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
As more and more lawsuits are filed against Merck, maker of prescription Vioxx, which was pulled of the market after it was found to cause stroke and heart attack, some suggest it is time for Merck to consider settling cases out of court, while others think Merck should wait for more results in court before they decide to pay out what could amount to tens of billions of dollars to thousands of people.
Merck & Co Inc. has vowed to defend other upcoming court cases involving its pain medication Vioxx, but legal experts said on Monday that the drug maker may quickly shift tactics if it loses another high- stakes trial.
The company should rethink its position of defending additional lawsuits now that a Texas jury has found Merck negligent in the first trial involving Vioxx, said David Berg, a partner at law firm Berg & Androphy in Houston who is not involved in the litigation.
Still, others say Merck is doing the only thing it can reasonably do for now -- seeing how the other pending cases play out before making any decisions about whether it should try to reach a broad settlement with Vioxx users.
"One case does not a whole litigation strategy make," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, who specializes in torts and product liability.
In its verdict on Friday, a jury in Angleton, Texas ordered Merck to pay $253 million in damages to the family of Robert Ernst, a 59-year-old marathoner who took Vioxx.
After the verdict, Merck's general counsel said the company would "vigorously defend" other Vioxx cases coming to trial "one by one over the coming years."
Another Vioxx case is scheduled for next month in a state court in New Jersey.
The first federal trial is set for November in Louisiana.
Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004, saying its long-term usage could increase patients' risks of heart attack or stroke.
In challenging the jury's verdict in the Texas case, legal observers say the company is almost sure to succeed in one area -- getting the $253 million damage award greatly reduced.
That is because Texas law set limits on punitive damage awards.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml