MERCK WINS A ROUND . . . From the Associated Press, "Jury Finds for Merck in Vioxx Case"--

Merck & Co. won a major victory in the battle over its Vioxx painkiller Thursday when a New Jersey state jury found that the drugmaker properly warned consumers about the risks of the medication. The finding means Merck won't be held liable for the 2001 heart attack suffered by a man taking Vioxx.

After deliberating for less than eight hours over three days, the jury cleared Merck of allegations it failed to warn consumers about the drug's risks and engaged in "unconscionable commercial practices" in marketing it to doctors and their patients.

If there's a winner on the plaintiffs' side, it's Mark Lanier, the lawyer who won the first trial for his client in Texas. He's looking pretty good right now. Even so, comparisons between Lanier and Chris Seeger, the plaintiff's lawyer in New Jersey, are unfair. Seeger is a competent lawyer who was well-prepared for his case. While there will be many theories as to why the results in the two cases were different, analyzing those results based solely on the respective lawyers is too simplistic. Behind the scenes, of course, that's exactly what plaintiffs' lawyers around the country will be doing. But aren't trash-talking and chest-thumping better left to rap stars, professional wrestlers, and U.S. Congressmen?

My collected Vioxx posts are here. If you are (a) someone who was harmed by Vioxx or (b) a lawyer who wants to refer your Vioxx cases to a highly-competent team of mass-tort lawyers, look here.

Comments

[JimK]

It wasn't the lawyer that won in Texas, it was whoever advised him on selecting the jury. When the Houston Chronicle published the backgrounds of all the jurors before the trial, I turned to my wife and said Merck should settle, because they've just lost the case.

There was not a single person on the Texas jury with either the education or occupational training to be able to understand the results of a scientific or medical study. For those who didn't have even have a concept of what statistical significance, other results suggested, etc. are, Merck's entire defense was meaningless babble. That left it wide open for the plaintiff's attorney to substitute emotion for facts.

[Mark W]

Good point on the trash talking and second guessing. Seeger is a quality attorney, has worked this case for years and was ready to represent his client. Merck just pulled out all the stops as this was a case they literally couldn't afford to lose. Lets face it, when was the last time you saw defense counsel in tears over a verdict they won? They HAD to win this. Of greater interest now is how will Merck handle multiple cases in multiple states now that the MDL is falling apart down in Louisiana vs concentrated resources that Seeger faced in NJ.

[VioxxAvenger]

Seeger also reportedly rebuffed Mr. Lanier's offer to help free of charge in the Humeston case.

[Evan]

VioxxAvenger: I've heard that rumor too but not directly from Lanier or Seeger or their offices. Was it actually "reported" somewhere?

[CAvH]

Looks like the coffers of the democrats stopped filling for a moment.

I'm sure the leerjetmafia that cares about "the common man" will come stronger (and more biased) back with another more illiterate jury.

[mythago]

That left it wide open for the plaintiff's attorney to substitute emotion for facts

Funny, but I could have sworn that the defense had a hand in selecting that jury.