How the plaintiff’s lawyer spins a loss into a “victory”:
“This was actually a major victory for plaintiffs across the country as this was the first time that the jury was asked if Merck failed to warn the patients about the dangers of Vioxx and the answer was yes by a unanimous verdict,” said Galpern. “Unfortunately they found that Vioxx did not cause Mrs. Doherty’s heart attacks, and we are disappointed with that one.”
Similar Posts:
- Does Avandia cause heart attacks, and why the RECORD study is important
- Can you escape a family history of heart disease?
- Do heart attack patients benefit from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 5 comments }
Typical trial attorney pap. Each group of litigators need only one win to set them up for a lifetime. Let us hope that we continue to have reasonable juries that see through this and other PI BS smokescreens (provider induced cerebral palsy, whiplash, post-traumatic fibromyalgia, etc.) Let us just hope that the decedant’s provider didn’t bed him/herself with these attorneys and exposit some post hoc ergo propter hoc causation testimony.
uless of course it happens to be one of your family members hurt by their medicine, then we can surely expect you to sing a different song…right?
My family or not, I expect the matter to be handled based upon the science of the issue and not conjecture or emotion. The key to this is proving, to a reasonable degree of scientific (not medical)certainty that a causal relationship between the use of the product and the condition exists (temporal relationship is not sufficient).
This case, and perhaps all torts, should be evaluated using a scientific basis. The toxic tort system is a start with plaintiffs needing to prove both general and specific causation. The latter, however, still needs some work. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not science nor should advocate “expert testimony” be misconstrued as an objective analysis of the facts of the case. Find a specific trait of Vioxx induced MI that is not present with other potential sources and we can have consideration of a causal linkage.
It appears that the jury actually did consider this on a scientific basis. In fact, they agreed with what many physicians here say – DTC marketing of pharmaceuticals can be misleading and dangerous, and there is real danger in it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it caused the particular plaintiff’s injury.
But what do these people know – they’re just stupid laymen.
First and third comments were mine. I areed with the finding of the jury.
Comments on this entry are closed.