Judge rules on scope of Vioxx arguments in first federal lawsuit
Judge rules on scope of Vioxx arguments in first federal lawsuit
11/21/2005, 4:49 p.m. CT
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY The Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Lawyers for a woman whose husband died of a heart attack after a month on Vioxx may argue that the once popular painkiller can be lethal if taken for weeks, and Merck & Co. may argue that it takes 18 months to create any danger, a federal judge has ruled.
Each side had tried to get the judge to rule out its opponent's key argument — how long someone must take Vioxx before it increases the risk of heart attacks — for the first federal Vioxx trial.
"In essence, both the Plaintiff and Merck rely on the same material," U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon wrote in a 57-page ruling. "They simply interpret it differently and reach contrary conclusions. The Court's role as gate-keeper is to scrutinize the methodology, not the conclusions."
The trial begins Nov. 29 in Houston, where it was moved after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and those contentions are the keys.
Merck is 1-1 before state juries. It won a case this month in its home state, New Jersey, and lost a $253 million verdict in Texas three months ago, though Texas law will cut it to $26.1 million.
Merck's attorneys may also bring up evidence about whether Evelyn Irvin Plunkett and her husband, Richard "Dicky" Irvin, were separated when he died at the age of 53, Fallon wrote. That may be relevant to arguments about whether Plunkett should be awarded damages for loss of her husband's love and companionship, the judge wrote.
This case is among 1,800 for which Fallon is supervising pretrial matters. Plunkett contends Vioxx caused the blood clot that killed her husband, manager of a wholesale seafood distributor in St. Augustine, Fla.
Fallon has asked attorneys in the case not to talk to reporters. He has not issued a written order. But a note made public Monday said Plunkett's attorneys, who had contended that they could talk to reporters until the trial started, and Merck's, who had complied immediately, had agreed Thursday on terms for the order.
Fallon's 57-page ruling, which was dated Friday, also covered expert witnesses. Fallon said all 13 expert witnesses may testify, though he said some of the testimony might be redundant. He also limited testimony by one professor.
The separation question was among rulings on dozens of motions added to the record Monday. In each case, the motions are described briefly on the left half of the page, and Fallon's decision hand-written on the right.
The judge noted that he would wait until trial to decide about several of them, including whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found that all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks. Plunkett's attorneys claim that is false and prejudicial.
Merck stopped selling Vioxx in September 2004, when a study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or longer. The company says no studies prove such a risk for shorter periods, and that it believed Vioxx to be safe until the 2004 study.
Plunkett claims Merck knew it could be dangerous years before it went on the market.
11/21/2005, 4:49 p.m. CT
By JANET McCONNAUGHEY The Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Lawyers for a woman whose husband died of a heart attack after a month on Vioxx may argue that the once popular painkiller can be lethal if taken for weeks, and Merck & Co. may argue that it takes 18 months to create any danger, a federal judge has ruled.
Each side had tried to get the judge to rule out its opponent's key argument — how long someone must take Vioxx before it increases the risk of heart attacks — for the first federal Vioxx trial.
"In essence, both the Plaintiff and Merck rely on the same material," U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon wrote in a 57-page ruling. "They simply interpret it differently and reach contrary conclusions. The Court's role as gate-keeper is to scrutinize the methodology, not the conclusions."
The trial begins Nov. 29 in Houston, where it was moved after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, and those contentions are the keys.
Merck is 1-1 before state juries. It won a case this month in its home state, New Jersey, and lost a $253 million verdict in Texas three months ago, though Texas law will cut it to $26.1 million.
Merck's attorneys may also bring up evidence about whether Evelyn Irvin Plunkett and her husband, Richard "Dicky" Irvin, were separated when he died at the age of 53, Fallon wrote. That may be relevant to arguments about whether Plunkett should be awarded damages for loss of her husband's love and companionship, the judge wrote.
This case is among 1,800 for which Fallon is supervising pretrial matters. Plunkett contends Vioxx caused the blood clot that killed her husband, manager of a wholesale seafood distributor in St. Augustine, Fla.
Fallon has asked attorneys in the case not to talk to reporters. He has not issued a written order. But a note made public Monday said Plunkett's attorneys, who had contended that they could talk to reporters until the trial started, and Merck's, who had complied immediately, had agreed Thursday on terms for the order.
Fallon's 57-page ruling, which was dated Friday, also covered expert witnesses. Fallon said all 13 expert witnesses may testify, though he said some of the testimony might be redundant. He also limited testimony by one professor.
The separation question was among rulings on dozens of motions added to the record Monday. In each case, the motions are described briefly on the left half of the page, and Fallon's decision hand-written on the right.
The judge noted that he would wait until trial to decide about several of them, including whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found that all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of strokes and heart attacks. Plunkett's attorneys claim that is false and prejudicial.
Merck stopped selling Vioxx in September 2004, when a study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or longer. The company says no studies prove such a risk for shorter periods, and that it believed Vioxx to be safe until the 2004 study.
Plunkett claims Merck knew it could be dangerous years before it went on the market.
posted by Chris Placitella at 6:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home