GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!! Vioxx judgement...

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,737
242
63
53
BG, KY, USA
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9006921/

awarding his widow $253.4 million in damages in the first of thousands of lawsuits pending across the country.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


"Plaintiff Carol Ernst began to cry when the verdict was read while her attorneys jumped up and shouted, ?Amen!?

LMAO!! I can just picture this. They probably jumped like George Costanza.

The jury broke down the damage award as $450,000 in economic damages ? Robert Ernst?s lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager; $24 million for mental anguish and loss of companionship, and $229 million in punitive damages.

c'mon now!!
 

LUX

el hombre!
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
431
0
16
53
Marietta, GA
I just saw this on the news and it said that the amount will be reduced significantly by the judge, but I agree with what you're saying.
 

Marco

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 29, 2003
793
0
0
And people wonder why health care costs are soaring through the roof.....

doctors leave states to practice in other states where malpractice insurance is more affordable....

somebody sprains a toe and wants 42 million.....crap like that....

how that old lady leaving the drive-thru got that award from spilling coffe in her lap.....like she didn't know coffee was hot?

all kinds of people caught on tape on casino properties taking a dive and claiming an accident...

No caps on awards so these judgements keep going through the roof...

How many more million would have this lady got had her husband fell on the cat and smothered it to death?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I was not at the trial. But if this company new they had shit for sale and didn't stop it. They might learn now.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
djv said:
I was not at the trial. But if this company new they had shit for sale and didn't stop it. They might learn now.

should everyone who was taking Vioxx and died get 250 Mill $$????

should everyone who was taking alcohol and died get 250 Mil $$?????

should everyone who was NOT taking alcohol and died because of it get 250 Mil. $$????

no sane person can think this is anything but criminal thievery going on in our court rooms
 

Sun Tzu

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 10, 2003
6,197
9
0
Houston, Texas
I know alot more about this case than you will ever know. You all are wrong here. You would be shocked if you saw the documents at issue.

The purpose of punitive damages is not to give it to the plaintiff (although that is where it goes) it is to punish the culprit. $229 million represents what Merck made in 1 month - profits - of Vioxx sales. It is a slap on the wrist. Under Texas law the punitive damages will be reduced to 1.65 million when the judge signs the judgment. The actual damages probably will not get cut, and Merck will not win on appeal.

Moreover, the $229 million was equal to what Merck executives said would be the gain if the company rushed to market and got ahead of Celebrex.

As for medical malpractice insurance, premiums have actually gotten higher in states with damages caps. Despite what insurance companies tell you, there is no relation between claims and premiums. Every study done on it shows that. No doubt there are many frivolous suits that need to be stopped. But dont fall into the trap that it has some greater meaning. Insurance companies have lost their asses with their investments and are trying to make it up in premiums.
 
Last edited:

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
Sun Tzu said:
I know alot more about this case than you will ever know. You all are wrong here. You would be shocked if you saw the documents at issue.

The purpose of punitive damages is not to give it to the plaintiff (although that is where it goes) it is to punish the culprit. $229 million represents what Merck made in 1 month - profits - of Vioxx sales. It is a slap on the wrist. Under Texas law the punitive damages will be reduced to 1.65 million when the judge signs the judgment. The actual damages probably will not get cut, and Merck will not win on appeal.

Moreover, the $229 million was equal to what Merck executives said would be the gain if the company rushed to market and got ahead of Celebrex.

As for medical malpractice insurance, premiums have actually gotten higher in states with damages caps. Despite what insurance companies tell you, there is no relation between claims and premiums. Every study done on it shows that. No doubt there are many frivolous suits that need to be stopped. But dont fall into the trap that it has some greater meaning. Insurance companies have lost their asses with their investments and are trying to make it up in premiums.

The patient died of cardiac arrhythmia. No evidence of embolus, thrombus, or infarct was found.

There is no study that relates cardiac arrhythmia to a Cox II inhibitor.

Second, even if it was an MI or stroke, there is absolutely NO way you can prove that Vioxx was causal. ESPECIALLY after being on this drug for 8 months as in this case.

Third, the study used to conclude morbiity/mortality from Vioxx is riddled with problems. One of which has all to do with patient population. Patients who take Vioxx generally have many other comorbities. How each comorbiity can affect the other as well as different medicine regimans, genetic makeups, etc. etc. are not accounted for.

Then to extrapolate this "data" to a single case is also nonsense. No medicine is ever practiced this way nor shoudl it ever be. Yet another reason why law is ruining medicine.

ALl this makes this study comlete BS. Vioxx was not on trial for misleading people. If that is a crime, then try it in a criminal court. NOT in a civil court. That is complete BS to do so. The courts have been sabotaged, and finding a friendly rural uneducated jury to try a drug company is also BS. Whatever happened to being tried by a jury of your peers???? Why not put competent and reasonable people to make a decision???? Why? Because trial lawyers are bringing down the country.

If you dont think claims and premiums have anything to do with each other, you must have zero mathematical/actuarial skills. That is also complete garbage.
 
Last edited:

saint

Go Heels
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
9,501
140
63
Balls Deep
dr. freeze said:
The patient died of cardiac arrhythmia. No evidence of embolus, thrombus, or infarct was found.

There is no study that relates cardiac arrhythmia to a Cox II inhibitor.

Second, even if it was an MI or stroke, there is absolutely NO way you can prove that Vioxx was causal. ESPECIALLY after being on this drug for 8 months as in this case.

Third, the study used to conclude morbiity/mortality from Vioxx is riddled with problems. One of which has all to do with patient population. Patients who take Vioxx generally have many other comorbities. How each comorbiity can affect the other as well as different medicine regimans, genetic makeups, etc. etc. are not accounted for.

Then to extrapolate this "data" to a single case is also nonsense. No medicine is ever practiced this way nor shoudl it ever be. Yet another reason why law is ruining medicine.

ALl this makes this study comlete BS. Vioxx was not on trial for misleading people. If that is a crime, then try it in a criminal court. NOT in a civil court. That is complete BS to do so. The courts have been sabotaged, and finding a friendly rural uneducated jury to try a drug company is also BS. Whatever happened to being tried by a jury of your peers???? Why not put competent and reasonable people to make a decision???? Why? Because trial lawyers are bringing down the country.

If you dont think claims and premiums have anything to do with each other, you must have zero mathematical/actuarial skills. That is also complete garbage.


Come on Freeze, why would you want a competent jury of peers up there when you can have joe blow decide what the standard of care is. It's great when a professional's opinion means nothing when a jury of people with no education in the matter get to decide what is SOC and what isn't. Next time they are sick and come asking you for help, why not get 10 random people off the street to offer their diagnosis and treatment. After all, what's a "trained" opinion have to do with it?
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,476
151
63
Bowling Green Ky
"As for medical malpractice insurance, premiums have actually gotten higher in states with damages caps. Despite what insurance companies tell you, there is no relation between claims and premiums. Every study done on it shows that. No doubt there are many frivolous suits that need to be stopped. But dont fall into the trap that it has some greater meaning. Insurance companies have lost their asses with their investments and are trying to make it up in premiums."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dont fall for trap of attorneys telling you a quarter billion payment for this case is good for anyone--especially with 4,000 cases pending and now you will have the lower echelon attorneys who couldn't afford "their legal experts" chiming in with

"have you are a loved one--blah blah blah".

and---"Despite what insurance companies tell you, there is no relation between claims and premiums."
Please share with us your facts behind this statement.I am quite curious as when we receive annual rate adjustments on groups they always include loss ratio and premiums adjusted accordingly.Only person that I know that would make claim like this is an attorney.


If you don't think any losses the company has will be passed on to consumer your as naive as those that think personal injuries attorneys are for the little guy.

and on states with caps I can site those with increase in premium and decrease--the fact is most Ins companys have pulled out of this market and want no part of it at any cost.

Bottom line who is real winner with verdicts like these--not the public price increases--not the company--and the claimants will not receive as much as the real winners--the attorneys.

Now I agree big companys should be punished "IF" they are criminally neglect knowing risks they do not make public--however I have doubts that any juries who awards such ridiculous amounts have enough smarts to understand the facts in these complicated cases.

How about this--Have arbitration board of experts to decide and cut out the vultures compensation. If there is fault, compensate those effected accordingly and fine the company substantially.

In this case they expect settlement of billions before it is over--with attorneys raking in about half.

We could take 1/2 the attorneys wind fall as fine and put that money in fund for drugs for people below poverty level.

Who wins in this scenerio
The companies do not have litigation expenses--
Judgement is more accurate with panel of experts vs general public
Plaintiffs are fairly compensated and probably receive more than after attorney's take.
The general public does not have huge increased passed on to them to pay for litigation and settlement cost.
The poor get drug entitlements
---and we know without doubt who the ONLY loser is.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What will the proposed makeover of the medical liability system accomplish? Studies indicate that caps on awards adopted by several states were associated with lower malpractice premiums for physicians. In fact, premiums in states with a cap on awards were 17.1 percent lower than in states without such caps.13 A 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of malpractice premiums in states with and without tort reform indicates that certain caps on damage awards in combination with other elements of proposed tort reform legislation would effectively decrease malpractice premiums an average of 25 to 30 percent from 2004 to 2013.14 This reduction in malpractice premiums would certainly appease doctors, and likely lead to increased access to care, but would it drastically reduce overall health care costs?

http://www.hcfo.net/topic0105.htm#13
 
Last edited:

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
Large verdicts like this happen all the time, but seldom hold. Its called, "remittitur."

Remittitur is a procedure where the trial judge calls the parties into chambers and says, "Listen, Mrs. Plaintiff, there is no way that the evidence presented at trial supports your multi-million dollar verdict. Reduce it by 90% now, or we are going back into the courtroom to pick another jury and try the damages portion again." The Plaintiff agrees, and the new, reduced verdict amount is entered as a judgment.

Then, there will be appeals. That is a whole other kettle of fish. Verdicts tend to get hacked apart by the time the justices are done.

But this post verdict stuff usually gets ignored.

Judicial process is necessarily front-loaded. Everything that needs to be tried is done at trial, rather than try each issue piece-meal and wait for the appeal. The effect is huge verdict dollar amounts.

Ever wonder why a murder defendant is sometimes sentenced to multiple life terms, more than the number of murders he allegedly committed. He can only serve one, we know. So why the others? Because some of them may be reversed on appeal. Judicial economy demands that the trial go first, then the appeals; and not trial, appeal, trial, appeal, etc.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
She will never see that amount. Maybe 10/20 mill. Lets see the product made over 3 billion a year. No big loss. Now go back and get the product right. Forget bringing up bozz. I never heard a doc tell people go get drunk. I hope you don't think folks should have guns taken away.
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
She'll have a nice payday in 2011, netting out about $4 mil after all is said. But the woman lost her husband because of someone else's mistake, or greed, and there is nothing nice about that.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
JCDunkDogs said:
She'll have a nice payday in 2011, netting out about $4 mil after all is said. But the woman lost her husband because of someone else's mistake, or greed, and there is nothing nice about that.

this post is a great example of how the layman has absolutely no clue as to what is going on and has no business being in a jury deciding cases of this matter

show us exactly how "the woman lost her husband because of someone else's mistake, or greed"

explain to us exactly how you are able to make such an outrageous conclusion
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
I never heard a doc tell people go get drunk.

I've never heard a doc say to go get hopped up on Vioxx, either.

But I have heard two different doctors tell my wife WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT that if she is feeling stressed during the pregnancy that A glass of wine was perfectly healthy.

She will never see that amount. Maybe 10/20 mill. Lets see the product made over 3 billion a year. No big loss.

You're right. There won't be a single other opportunist standing in line at the Vioxx ATM will there?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
What the heck line them up and pay them all. That way they can just take 1 billion and divide it between 4000 maybe 5000. If the company can prove there case pay them nothing. I guess that's the American capitalist way.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,476
151
63
Bowling Green Ky
Before 1960's the legal system discouraged lawsuits---two things have occurred by 1968 lawyers in all 50 states were allowed to take cases on contingency--in June of 1977 they allowed attorneys to advertise for clients--and the lottery lawsuit era was off and running.
So you have anyone wanting to free shot with nothing to lose.
In every case your going to have at least one attorney win--the defense attorney and possibly both. The defendent is going to lose regardless of quilty or not quilty and the plaintiff has nothing to lose and everything to gain. If you went the way of England where loser pays you cut 50% of cases off dockets.
A good read on this topic is Lawsuit Lottery: The Hijacking of Justice in America--written by an attorney.

How Does the Civil Justice System Affect Me?

Overall Impact: The United States Economy
The cost of the U.S. tort system for 1994 was $152 billion. Over the past ten years, it has increased 125%.

Between 1930 and 1994 U.S. tort costs have grown almost four times faster than the rate of growth of the U.S. economy.

The U.S. tort system is the most expensive in the industrialized world. U.S. tort costs are 2.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), substantially higher than that of other developed countries studied and two and a half times the average of those studied.

The U.S. tort system returns less than 50 cents on the dollar and less than 25 cents for actual economic loss to claimants.

Tillinghaust-Towers Perrin. Tort Costs Trends: An International Perspective, (New York, New York, 1995)

Productivity & Employment: Positive Changes To The Tort System


A recent study revealed that when states pass tort reform, productivity and employment increase. These increases range from 7 or 8% for productivity to 11 and 12% for employment. If a state enacted more than one reform, increases ranged from 10 to 20% for productivity and employment.

When states pass laws that increase liability such as comparative negligence or prejudgment interest, there is a significant decrease in productivity and employment.

Campbell, Thomas J. The Causes and Effects of Liability Reform: Some Empirical Evidence. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Working Paper # 4989, 1995.


Before federal legislation was enacted, production of single-engine aircraft had fallen 95% from the previous highs of the late 1970's. Plants were forced to close and over 100,000 jobs were lost.

General Aviation Manufacturers Association. A Report to the President and Congress, The Results of the General Aviation Revitalization Act (1996).


In 1986 Cessna Aircraft Company discontinued production of the single engine aircraft. Prior to the passage of General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), the CEO of Cessna pledged that if Congress enacted product liability legislation to protect the general aviation industry, Cessna would resume manufacturing small aircraft. Since the passage of GARA, Cessna has invested $55 million in facilities and equipment. It currently employs 650 people and plans to double that number in 1998.

Prior to the passage of GARA, Unison Industries held back from introducing a state of the art digital ignition system which it had developed in 1986. With the passage of GARA, the safer digital ignition system is now available to pilots and their passengers.

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Product Liability Reform Act of 1997. Report 105-32 pg. 41. June 19, 1997.


According to the General Aviation Manufactures Association, since the passage of GARA, over 9,000 new jobs have been created. A total of 25,000 new jobs are predicted in the next five years.

Empirical Evidence in the States
Alabama: Economy Impacted

The business climate has been adversely impacted by punitive damage awards and settlements. Between 1980-1985 punitive damage awards increased 440 times the rate of job growth.

The state spends twice as much per capita, $395, on direct tort costs as it does for the State General Fund Expenditure (all state expenditures excluding education), $182.

According to the Corporation for Enterprise Development, compared to other states, Alabama ranks nearly at the bottom for business vitality.

Ward, Keith J. Associates. A study to address relationships between economic development and the need for tort reform. (March 15, 1993).


Illinois: Economic Improvement Due To Tort Reform

In 1995, the Illinois Legislature passed HB 20, the Civil Justice Reform Amendments. Since its enactment, the number of civil suits filed in the nine largest court jurisdictions has declined by 30%. This law saved $150 million for taxpayers.

Due to the passage of this bill, Cook County has experienced 63% reduction in product liability suits, a 39.6% reduction in medical malpractice suits and a 26.7% reduction in premises liability suits. The only category that did not reveal a less than 15% decline was suits involving motor vehicle injuries. In these particular cases, the decline was 13.5%.

Illinois Civil Justice League. 1995 Tort Reform is Saving Illinois Citizens Millions. News Release, March 27, 1997.


Important Note: On December 18, 1997 the Illinois Supreme Court declared the Civil Justice Reform Amendments of 1995 unconstitutional in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, Inc. This case exemplifies the alarming trend of state courts disregarding legislative enactments in the area of tort law. It remains ATRA's belief that creating state tort law and policy is a proper function for state legislatures. Moreover, this unwarranted decision does not diminish the positive economic impact noted above.

Massachusetts: A Case Study

According to a recent report, Massachusetts tort costs totaled $4.1 billion, or 2.6% of gross state product in 1992.

Massachusetts tort costs will rise to an estimated $5.1 billion in 1995. This amounts to a tort cost of $833 for every Massachusetts resident.

The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. The Economics of Civil Justice Reform in Massachusetts. May 1997


Annual Survey: 50 Legislative Climates

Site Selection, a resource tool used by businesses to assess states with viable business climates, views tort reform as a determining factor when businesses are deciding upon location. According to the 1995 edition, recently enacted legislation in Illinois, Texas, and North Dakota make these states attractive to businesses.

International Development Research Council. Site Selection: The Global Magazine of Business Strategy. October 1995.

Economic Impact on Product Manufacturers


Sunstar, a company that manufacturers health spas, invented a warning device that would set off an alarm anytime the cover of one of its products was opened. Because the product was a safety device, Sunstar could find only one insurance company that was willing to write a policy. The cost of the policy would have increased the company's annual premium from $10,000 to $100,000. Sunstar subsequently decided not to market the safety device.

A Letter to Representative Ron Packard, August 8, 1991


According to a spokesperson of a major manufacturer of protective sporting goods equipment, material suppliers are reluctant to sell to her company due to the fear of liability exposure. This company was able to develop a new baseball product but was unable to obtain a material supplier.

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Product Liability Reform Act of 1997. Report 105-32 pg. 7. June 19, 1997.


Research and Medical Products Kept off the Market


According to the Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research, the number of companies that perform research on contraceptive devices has declined from 13 to 2, due to the fear of liability.

Liability concerns are keeping beneficial products such as Bendectin, the only anti-nausea medication ever approved by the FDA for use during pregnancy, off the market.

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Product Liability Reform Act of 1997. Report 105-32 pg. 7. June 19, 1997.


According to Science magazine, liability concerns led to at least two companies delaying research on an AIDS vaccine while another company abandoned a promising approach all together.

Science Magazine. "Is Liability Slowing AIDS Vaccines?" April 10,1992 pgs 168-69.


Biomaterial suppliers have become reluctant to provide their products to medical device manufacturers due to low returns and high risks. One supplier spent $8 million annually to defend itself in cases involving temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants even though that supplier had no role in the design, manufacture or sale of the device. Sales by all suppliers of TMJ implant manufacturers totaled $418,000 while sales of this same raw material to all other markets totaled $282 million.

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Product Liability Reform Act of 1997. Report 105-32 pg. 13. June 19, 1997.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top