If I were on a jury in a med. malpractice case, and the science as presented was so muddy that we couldn’t understand it, I would have asked questions of witnesses in an attempt to clarify things. If that didn’t work, I think I would be inclined not to find for the plaintiff on the grounds that he/she had not proved the case. At the very least, I would not have supported that large an award, for any number of reasons, not the least of which would be that the case was too uncertain.

I was not on this case, have not reviewed the evidence, do not know the science, etc., etc., etc. I am turned off, however, by several of the statements made by jurors after the fact. They sound irresponsible, to me.

Okay, CJD and everyone else, take your best shot.

CJD, I agree with you more often than not as far as the anti-jury slant on medblogs goes, but have you considered moderating your tone? You come off as an obnoxious jack-a$$ and people end up in shouting matches with you instead of seriously addressing your often insightful and incisive commentary.

As an aside, the recent AJPH supplement on science in the courts has some excellent write-ups by MDs and PhDs on scientific evidence and juries.

Oh, I forgot – you don’t know any of that.

Actually they do so because it is required by the FDA.

LOL, Dr. Elliot does it here all the time.

I would imagine that defense counsel was well prepared. Merck had to know the importance of this case as did their defense counsel. You don’t pay $500+ an hour to be unprepared. I would be shocked if they didn’t have their own jury consultants, mock trials, etc. But Merck’s not exactly eager to reveal how much it spent and the tactics it used to lose.

Still, it’s a little surprising that the President of the company couldn’t be bothered to be there when everyone knew how high the stakes were.

The shock here is not that plaintiff won a close case (someone needs to win) but that the damages are off the chart. Place to change the law is relating to damages, IMO.

Actually, companies now post so many pages of dangers and side effects in the handout that comes with every prescription in order to avoid getting sued that it has rendered the information completely useless. Another result of the litigation craze in this country.