Kirk Bernard's Welding Rod Injury Law Review

Six and a half million dollar verdict Against Miss. Nursing Home Tossed Over Juror's Statements

By KEVIN MCVEIGH, ESQ., Andrews Publications Staff Writer

The Mississippi Supreme Court has reversed a $6.5 million verdict awarded to the family of a deceased nursing home resident against the facility's owner and corporate parents, finding the trial court failed to investigate allegations of juror misconduct.

In a 7-2 opinion the high court said a juror allegedly told fellow jurors during the trial that the same facility neglected her relative, but she did not disclose that information to the court during voir dire.

The trial court's refusal to investigate the allegations, which were raised by another juror after the verdict, jeopardized the fairness of the trial, the state Supreme Court held.

The family of Charles Edwards filed the lawsuit in the Leflore County Circuit Court against Mariner Health Care and its subsidiaries, including National Heritage Realty Inc., which owned the Greenwood Health & Rehabilitation Center.

According to the high court's opinion, Edwards suffered from severe mental retardation, autism, seizures, a swallowing disorder and chronic pneumonia. He entered the Greenwood center in December 1994 at age 40.

In 1997, after Edwards' refusal to eat led to a significant weight loss, Greenwood staff members inserted a feeding tube into his stomach. However, his body eventually stopped processing nutrients from the tube, and he lost 22 pounds. Despite this, Greenwood never ordered intravenous feeding, the opinion said.

Edwards died Feb. 16, 2002, from pneumonia-related cardiac arrest. The high court said the pneumonia resulted from volume depletion, a condition caused by lack of fluid in the body's cells.

Edwards' family alleged in their wrongful-death and negligence lawsuit that Greenwood's failure to start IV feeding caused his death.

In December 2003 a jury awarded the family $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages

Read the rest at Findlaw

Florida Under Pressure To Renew Personal Injury Insurance Legislation

Tallahassee, FL (AHN) - If lawmakers don't act quickly, Florida will be the only state in the union that would not require drivers to have bodily injury liability coverage.

Florida's Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink said on Wednesday that if a current law is allowed to expire, the estimated 20 percent of the state's residents who have inadequate or no health insurance would be rendered unable to pay their bills if injured in a traffic accident.

"That's serious," Sink said. Should the measure expire drivers will only be required to carry liability insurance for property damage.

Currently the state's requirement for personal injury protection, or PIP, will automatically expire Oct. 1 unless the legislature passes a law to continue it.

Read the full article here.

Vioxx News Feed

Texas judge refuses to delay first Vioxx lawsuit

In the Daily Texan: "Texas judge refuses to delay first Vioxx lawsuit: Drugmaker said other recently announced suits would bias jury" by By Jimmie Collins writes:

7/6/2005 Jury selection for the first case against Merck & Co. Inc. alleging wrongful death due to use of the drug Vioxx will begin Monday. The company moved to postpone jury selection in Wharton, Texas for at least two months saying a high-profile lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed last week would bias a jury. District Judge Ben Hardin denied the motion Tuesday.

Abbott's lawsuit claims the company aggressively marketed Vioxx by misrepresenting its own studies and the concerns of physicians about increased risk of heart problems, according to a written statement. "Drug companies have an ethical, legal and professional responsibility to conduct meticulous clinical studies to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs for human consumption," Abbott said.

Merck filed the motion Friday on the grounds that those in the jury will go to court with prior knowledge that would inevitably result from news coverage of Abbott's separate lawsuit. Hardin said the attorneys could use questionnaires to "ferret out" bias in the jury selection before the hearing the following Thursday. Merck conducted an immediate voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx, an arthritis and acute pain medication, from the market in September of last year.

"We are taking this action because we believe it best serves the interests of patients," said Raymond V. Gilmartin, chairman, Merck's president and chief executive officer.

The withdrawal was the result of a three-year clinical trial called APPROVe that showed life-threatening complications, such as increased risk of heart attack and stroke beginning after 18 months, according to a written statement.

"Merck has always believed that prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials are the best way to evaluate the safety of medicines," said Peter S. Kim, president of Merck Research Laboratories. "APPROVe is precisely this type of study - and it has provided us with new data on the cardiovascular profile of Vioxx."

Welders Show Elevated Rate of Parkinson Symptoms

On Reuturs, "Welders Show Elevated Rate of Parkinson Symptoms" by Amy Norton. Here is an excerpt:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Welders may have a higher-than-average rate of Parkinson's disease symptoms, the results of a new study suggest.

Researchers found that among more than 1,400 welders from Alabama, the prevalence of Parkinson-like symptoms, including tremor, muscle rigidity and slowed movement, was 7 to 10 times higher than the norm for the general population.

The findings, based on a group of mostly male welders between the ages of 40 and 69 years, are published in the journal Neurology.

Read the rest

Drugmaker knew Vioxx risk, suit says

Featured in The Mercury News: "Drugmaker knew Vioxx risk, suit says" By Matthai Chakko Kuruvila. Here is an excerpt:

A Redwood City man has filed suit against the maker of Vioxx, a pain reliever pulled off the market because of heart attack risks. The suit claims drug giant Merck knew of the danger while the man was given the drug in a clinical trial and suffered a heart attack.

The suit also states that doctors overseeing the clinical trial continued to give the drug to Joe Segura after the heart attack. It was only after Vioxx was pulled off the market in September that Segura, 65, learned he'd been taking the drug during the ``double-blind'' trial.

Segura's suit is one of hundreds being filed around the country against New Jersey-based Merck. While declining to comment on the specifics of Segura's case, a Merck spokeswoman said it would ``vigorously fight each of the lawsuits.

``Merck acted responsibly every step of the way,'' spokeswoman Casey Stavropoulos wrote in an e-mail. ``Merck based its decisions on the data from well-controlled clinical trials and acted in the best interest of patients.''

The lawsuit states that Segura was unaware of the risks of the drugs he was taking. But his attorney, Niki Okcu, declined to say whether a consent form Segura had signed spelled out those risks.

You can read the rest below or on the Mercury News site.

Vioxx Lawyers and Litigation -- Vioxx Use Has Resulted In Heart Attacks, Strokes & Blood Clots: Claims For Wrongful Death & Injuries

Pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. has killed and seriously injured tens of thousands of patients by vigorously marketing Vioxx to consumers. Since at least 2001, Merck knew or should have known that Vioxx was dangerously defective and put patients at increased at risk of heart attacks, strokes and blood clots. Merck downplayed, hid and lied about the dangers of the drug for years in order to bolster its profits. Because millions of Americans have taken the drug, which more than doubles the risk of heart attack and stroke, the Food and Drug Administration estimates that more than 27,000 patients have suffered heart attacks or have died as a result of their use of Vioxx.

On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx to limit its liability for manufacturing and marketing this defective drug. The building wave of lawsuits that had been filed and that will be filed due to developing scientific evidence forced Merck to withdraw the drug. Prior to Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx, firms participating in the Wrongful Death Attorney Network had filed dozens of lawsuits for people who were injured using Vioxx and for the families of people who died after using it.

If you have suffered a heart attack, stroke or other injury after using Vioxx, or if a member of your family has died after using Vioxx, please contact us immediately to speak with one of our attorneys and to investigate your right to file suit against Merck & Co.

Merck's actions, in vigorously marketing the drug when it knew that consumers were potentially being exposed to enormously increased risk, borders on the criminal. In August of 2001, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggested that Vioxx could increase the risk of cardiovascular events -- including heart attacks, strokes and chest pain. In September of 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to Merck, warning the company to stop making false claims regarding the safety of Vioxx. The letter highlighted the results of the "VIGOR" study, which showed a doubling of adverse "cardiovascular events" in patients who used Vioxx. Notwithstanding this study and the FDA's warning letter, Merck dismissed as irrelevant a 2002 study by University of Pennsylvania researchers that suggested that the drug could cause blood clots in mice. This study, published in the scholarly journal Science, suggested that the use of Vioxx could create a chemical imbalance that would increase the risk of excessive blood clotting. Blood clotting in turn can increase the risk of heart attack, stroke and pulmonary embolism, all life threatening conditions. Vioxx may also cause severe intestinal damage, including ulcerations and bleeding, and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), a fatal skin disease.

Even when there was substantial evidence that it was a deadly and dangerous drug, Merck continued to vigorously market Vioxx. Worse yet, Merck failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers and doctors of the likely risks the drug presented. Vioxx represented a huge stream of revenue for Merck - more than 2.5 billion dollars a year. Evidently, the company viewed its profits as being more important than the safety of consumers.

National Public Radio Features VIOXX Story

On all things considered, National Pubic Radio features "Merck Faces Proliferating Lawsuits over Vioxx."

You can listen to the story here.

Vioxx recall spurs flurry of lawsuits

Vioxx recall spurs flurry of lawsuits
By BARBARA ORTUTAY
Bucks County Courier Times

Less than a month since Merck recalled its popular arthritis drug Vioxx, lawsuits are pouring in by the dozens in what is expected to become a long and costly legal battle for the company.

Across the country, law firms are soliciting clients in a barrage of newspaper ads, Internet pop-ups and even banners outside their offices.

The Bensalem-based firm of Lamm, Rubenstone, Totaro and David has gone the banner route at its office in Bensalem. Partner Ed Rubenstone said the firm received two calls before the banner was erected and has received others since then.

Rubenstone represented clients in a 1997 class action suit against Wyeth-Ayerst, the makers of the diet drug fen-phen. It was a combination of two drugs (Pondimin and Redux) that was linked to heart and lung problems. Regarding Vioxx, Rubenstone said he's taking his time to determine the merit of the cases he will represent.

"I don't believe [in] rushing to sue in order to get your name in the paper," he said. "These cases will be in litigation for quite some time."

Legal experts have compared the fen-phen case to the Vioxx suits.

At the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, fen-phen was withdrawn from the market after a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine linked it to heart problems. Thousands of former fen-phen users eventually sued the company. A $4.75 billion settlement trust was established by the company.

Merck voluntarily recalled Vioxx after a study found people taking the drug for more than 18 months significantly increased their risk of stroke or heart attack. Merck won't comment on the specifics of any ongoing litigation, said spokeswoman Anita Larsen.

"We believe we have a strong and meritorious defense against the lawsuits that have been filed," she said.

For the Vioxx cases to stand up in court, the lawyers will have to prove that Vioxx caused the injuries and that Merck knew or should have known about the side effects and failed to inform patients, said law professor Susan Carle.

"All drugs have side effects," said Carle, who is a legal ethics expert at American University in Washington, D.C. The question is whether the company's "cost-benefit" analysis of the drug's risks versus its benefits was faulty, she said.

While there is evidence that Merck was at fault, Carle added, that alone doesn't make a strong legal case.

To prepare for the cases, the Bristol-based firm of Cordisco, Bradway and Simmons has hired cardiologists to review patients' charts, symptoms and use of Vioxx, said partner Theresa Simmons. Her firm is also advertising for potential clients who may have been injured by Vioxx.

"Most of these people are looking for peace of mind," she said. Of the numerous calls she's received, not one has mentioned money, she said.

"Most people who have had a heart attack are on guard for another," she said. "If people learn that Vioxx was the culprit, they'll rest a lot easier."

The study that led to the recall found that Vioxx was responsible for heart attacks and strokes only among those who were taking the drug and had done so for at least 18 months. People who stop it aren't at risk from it, medical experts have said.

Regarding advertising, the law professor said lawyers have the right to solicit clients. She said concerns arise if people are coerced or convinced to do something they wouldn't have done on their own.

Of course, she added, "If a case is certified as a class action, it's perfectly OK for a lawyer to solicit more people in the class

Asbestos lawsuits create U.S. legal crisis

Houston Chronicle: "Asbestos lawsuits create U.S. legal crisis," by Mike Tolson--

Burdened by 48,000 asbestos lawsuits, Kelly-Moore wants to prove to a jury that Union Carbide lied to it in the 1960s and '70s about the safety of asbestos. Company executives say its survival may rest on its verdict.
Kelly-Moore's David-and-Goliath assault on Union Carbide and its deep pockets is being widely watched because of the size of the damage claim — about $1.4 billion — and the precedent it could set. Reduced to basics, however, it is one more front in the war over a mineral that for much of the last century was viewed as a godsend.