NEW VIOXX VERDICT . . . Yesterday's $47.5 million verdict against Merck is the topic of a long weblog post by the plaintiff's son-in-law, Fredric Woodbridge, a self-described "political conservative"--
A few weeks back, I was in Atlantic City, NJ. I didn't really elaborate why I was there, but I think I can now. My father-in-law sued Merck in NJ (their home state) alleging their product, VIOXX, caused his 2001 heart attack. The trial I attended was the second; the Jury in the first found for Merck.
It's a long and interesting story . . .
There's more about the trial in Woodbridge's full post.
In its brief article about yesterday's verdict, the Wall Street Journal noted that "[t]he jury found the drug maker's handling of Vioxx was 'oppressive, outrageous or malicious.'" Meanwhile, at Point of Law, Merck-defender Ted Frank complains that the jury "consisted mostly of uneducated casino workers," which is how he explains the result. Since the same jury also ruled in favor of Merck against a second plaintiff, I'm not sure Frank's suggestion that the jury was too unsophisticated to appreciate Merck's defense holds up. Frank adds that an "honest appellate court" should rule for Merck on appeal.