flyingtiger1013 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050819/D8C32R300.html ANGLETON, Texas (AP) - A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. (MRK) 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. 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. A seven-man, five-woman jury from a semi-rural county south of Houston deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before blaming the drug for killing Ernst in his sleep in 2001. Jurors rejected Merck's argument that Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia. 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. Non-economic damages have no limit in Texas except in medical malpractice cases, which doesn't apply to the Ernst case. Shares of Merck & Co. fell $1.01, or 3.3 percent, to $29.40 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 We have a winner! Yes, another lucky winner of the litigation lottery! Those of you with complicated medical situations, be afraid. Your chances of getting new medications developed for your ailments just hit the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Again, the debate is how much is too much. What exactly is a human life worth? Are drug companies responsible if they knowingly provide a drug that has lethal consequences (which they might have covered up)? Are they responsible for drug side effects that they didn't know about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Originally posted by T.E.G. Again, the debate is how much is too much. What exactly is a human life worth? Are drug companies responsible if they knowingly provide a drug that has lethal consequences (which they might have covered up)? Are they responsible for drug side effects that they didn't know about? Yes & Yes. You don't put out chemicals that might be lethal without accepting the consequences that come from it. 254 million seems a bit excessive, but the verdict of guilty is absolutely correct, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 I'll take "reasons health insurance premiums are out of whack" for 200, Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Didnt they recently rip a drug off the shelves due to side affects. Only to put it back on the market .... They said this guy had 75% blockage of his heart??????? and they blamed the drug???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 I really do feel sympathy for the widow, but once they start playing the system, the sympathy dwindles. Mike, ANY chemical can have lethal consequenses if you misuse it. And people have different physiologies, so even if it isn't misused, it could have potentially dangerous side effects. The company pulled Vioxx off the market on their own. From what I understand, it was quite a moneymaker, which leads to the question, why would they voluntarily pull it off the market? They pulled it as soon as they realized it had potentially fatal side effects on certain people. That stikes me as the responsible thing to do. The problem with this suit is that now thousands of lawyers want a piece of the pie. If this doesn't get appealed and overturned or reduced to something reasonable, then this company will go under. And the companies that are left wil be unwilling to develope new drugs, leaving those of us who might need them utterly :censored:-ed. Unless, of course, Congress steps in and exempts drug companies from such lawsuits. THEN, they'll develope new drugs... and there will be no recourse if something messes up. Those of you that want to see stem cell R&D, you might want to think about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.