Ernst's widow, Carol receives 1/1250th of Vioxx profits

[Guest guest]

Texas law will likely restrict the award to 2 million. That's 2

million out of 2.5 billion in vioxx profits or 1 dollar for every

1250 dollars in vioxx profits. Other vioxx awards are likely to be

smaller on average and legislation concerning recent class action

award restrictions may well come into play. This all results in

vioxx as a net profitmaker for Merck under any circumstances and a

green light to continue the same procedure with it's next pandora

drug. The patients lose.

>

> AP

> THE TRIAL

> • What it's about: In the first of thousands of Vioxx cases to go

to

> court, Carol Ernst blames pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. for the

> 2001 death of her husband, Ernst. 7/5/05.

> • The legal teams: A matchup of legal powerhouses. 7/11/05.

>

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> -----------

> CASES PENDING

> • Texas sues: Merck accused of downplaying dangers of Vioxx.

6/30/05.

> Other lawsuits involving Vioxx pending against Merck:

> • 4,275 suits in federal and state courts.

> • 119 class action cases pending, but none certified.

>

>

>

> ANGLETON -- The Brazoria County jury in the nation's first Vioxx-

> related civil trial has found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.

> liable for the death of a man who took the painkiller.

>

> Jurors awarded Ernst's widow, Carol, $253.4 million in

> damages, which is a combination of his lost pay as a Wal-Mart

> produce manager, mental anguish, loss of companionship and punitive

> damages.

>

> Carol Ernst began to cry when the verdict was read while her

> attorneys jumped up and shouted, " Amen! "

>

> " Anyone who said they are too small town or won't understand, they

> are crazy, " said her lawyer, Mark Lanier. " They know truth and they

> know justice. "

>

> " Merck should come to the table and accept responsibility, " Lanier

> said.

>

> The case drew national attention from pharmaceutical companies,

> lawyers, consumers, stock analysts and arbitragers as a signal of

> what lies ahead for Merck, which has vowed to fight the more than

> 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the

> country. Merck said it plans to appeal.

>

> A seven-man, five-woman jury from a semi-rural county south of

> Houston deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before blaming

> the drug for killing Ernst in his sleep in 2001. Jurors rejected

> Merck's argument that Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a

> Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia.

>

> Merck response

> Skidmore, a member of Merck's defense team, said

today, " We

> believe that the plantiff did not meet the standard set by Texas

law

> to prove Vioxx caused Mr. Ernst's death. "

>

> " There is no reliable scientific evidence that shows Vioxx causes

> cardiac arrhythmias, which an autopsy showed was the cause of Mr.

> Ernst's death, along with coronary atherosclerosis. "

>

> Merck also contends the case did not call for punitive damages.

>

> " We believe that we have strong points to raise on appeal and are

> hopeful that the appeals process will correct the verdict, " said

> C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of

> Merck, in a written statement. " Our appeal is about fundamental

> rights to a fair trial. "

>

> The company will base its appeal on:

>

> — Allowing opening testimony to be given to the jury by unqualified

> experts.

>

> — Allowing opinion testimony that was not based on a reliable,

> scientific basis as required by Texas law.

>

> — Allowing evidence with no relevance to the issues of the case,

> which unfairly prejudiced the jury.

>

> — Allowing undisclosed surprise witness and expert testimony

> contrary to Texas law.

>

> Jury questions

> Ten of the 12 jurors had to answer the following questions in order

> to reach a verdict. The jury's decision was unanimous.:

>

> 1. Was there a defect in the marketing of Vioxx at the time it left

> the possession of Merck & Co., Inc., that was a producing cause of

> the death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer: Yes

>

> 2. Was there a design defect in Vioxx at the time it left the

> possession of Merck & Co., Inc. that was a producing cause of the

> death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer: yes

>

> 3. Did the negligence, if any, of Merck & Co. Inc., proximately

> cause the death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer: yes

>

> If jurors answer " yes " to questions No. 1,2 or 3, then they must

> answer the following.

>

> 4. What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and

> reasonably compensate Carol Ernst for her damages, if any,

resulting

> from the death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer separately, in dollars and cents, for damages, if any.

>

> a. Pecuniary loss sustained in the past. $100,000

>

> b. Pecuniary loss that, in reasonable probability, will be

sustained

> in the futurea. $350,000

>

> c. Loss of companionship and society sustained in the past. $2

> million

>

> d. Los of companionship and society that, in reasonable

probability,

> will be sustained in the future. $10 million

>

> e. Mental anguish sustained in the past. $2 million

>

> f. Mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, will be

sustained

> in the future. $10 million

>

> If jurors answer " yes " to questions No. 1, 2 or 3 and have inserted

> a sum of money in answer to question No. 4, then jurors will answer

> the following.

>

> 5. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to

Bob

> Ernst resulted from malice attributable to Merck & Co., Inc.?

>

> Answer: Yes

>

> If jurors answer " yes " to question No. 5, then they will answer the

> following question.

>

> 6. What sum of money, if any, should be assessed against Merck &

Co.

> Inc. and awarded to Carol Ernst as exemplary damages for the death

> of Bob Ernst?

>

> $229 million

>

>

>

> A little more than two hours into their second day of

deliberations,

> lawyers said jurors asked for a replay of testimony from Dr.

> Araneta, who attributed the 2001 death of Ernst to an

> irregular heartbeat secondary to clogged arteries. The panel had

yet

> to specify which part it wanted to hear, and any replaying of

> testimony must take place in open court.

>

> Vioxx-maker Merck & Co. used that autopsy to support the company's

> contention that the painkiller had nothing to do with

Ernst's

> death.

>

> Merck pulled the $2.5 billion seller from the market last year

after

> a study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if

> taken for 18 months or longer, but the company says no studies link

> Vioxx to arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat.

>

> Araneta, who now works at a hospital in the United Arab Emirates,

> testified that a blood clot probably caused a heart attack that

> triggered Ernst's arrhythmia. She said vigorous CPR likely

dislodged

> the clot so she couldn't find it during the autopsy, and his death

> was too sudden to leave evidence of the heart attack.

>

> Merck lost appeals to block jurors from hearing Araneta's testimony

> during the trial, which was presented via videotaped deposition.

>

> Araneta didn't blame Vioxx for causing a heart attack, noting she

> knew little of the drug in 2001. Other plaintiff's experts blamed

> the drug. Experts who testified for Merck said Araneta's written

> conclusions in the autopsy were valid, but her opinions expressed

> more than four years later were not.

>

> The trial that began July 14 was the first of more than 4,200

> lawsuits in the nation to go before a jury. The case has drawn

> national attention as the first test of Merck's legal fate, and

> analysts have speculated Merck's liability could reach $18 billion.

>

> Merck launched Vioxx in 1999 with great fanfare to relieve

arthritis

> and acute pain while cutting risk of stomach bleeding by inhibiting

> a blood-thinning enzyme. Some 20 million people took Vioxx when it

> was available to consumers.

>

> Lanier asked jurors to award her at least $40 million in damages.

>

> He suggested during closing arguments that her mental anguish and

> loss of companionship damages could reach $229 million or more.

> Lanier said Merck reaped that amount from Vioxx sales in the four

> months leading to the February 2002 addition of cardiovascular

> warnings on the drug's label. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration

> suggested the changes in October 2001 in light of a 2000 study that

> showed Vioxx users suffered five times as many heart attacks as

> those who took the older painkiller, naproxen.

>

> In Texas, punitive damages are capped at twice the amount of

> economic damages - lost pay - and up to $750,000 on top of non-

> economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of

> companionship. Non-economic damages have no limit in Texas except

in

> medical malpractice cases, which doesn't apply to the Ernst case.

>

> Shares of Merck & Co. fell $1.01, or 3.3 percent, to $29.40 in

> afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the verdict

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> -----------

> Chronicle reporters Ruth Rendon and , and The

> Associated Press contributed to this report.

> ruth.rendon@c...

>

> richard.stewart@c...

[Guest guest]

Texas law will likely restrict the award to 2 million. That's 2

million out of 2.5 billion in vioxx profits or 1 dollar for every

1250 dollars in vioxx profits. Other vioxx awards are likely to be

smaller on average and legislation concerning recent class action

award restrictions may well come into play. This all results in

vioxx as a net profitmaker for Merck under any circumstances and a

green light to continue the same procedure with it's next pandora

drug. The patients lose.

>

> AP

> THE TRIAL

> • What it's about: In the first of thousands of Vioxx cases to go

to

> court, Carol Ernst blames pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. for the

> 2001 death of her husband, Ernst. 7/5/05.

> • The legal teams: A matchup of legal powerhouses. 7/11/05.

>

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> -----------

> CASES PENDING

> • Texas sues: Merck accused of downplaying dangers of Vioxx.

6/30/05.

> Other lawsuits involving Vioxx pending against Merck:

> • 4,275 suits in federal and state courts.

> • 119 class action cases pending, but none certified.

>

>

>

> ANGLETON -- The Brazoria County jury in the nation's first Vioxx-

> related civil trial has found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.

> liable for the death of a man who took the painkiller.

>

> Jurors awarded Ernst's widow, Carol, $253.4 million in

> damages, which is a combination of his lost pay as a Wal-Mart

> produce manager, mental anguish, loss of companionship and punitive

> damages.

>

> Carol Ernst began to cry when the verdict was read while her

> attorneys jumped up and shouted, " Amen! "

>

> " Anyone who said they are too small town or won't understand, they

> are crazy, " said her lawyer, Mark Lanier. " They know truth and they

> know justice. "

>

> " Merck should come to the table and accept responsibility, " Lanier

> said.

>

> The case drew national attention from pharmaceutical companies,

> lawyers, consumers, stock analysts and arbitragers as a signal of

> what lies ahead for Merck, which has vowed to fight the more than

> 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the

> country. Merck said it plans to appeal.

>

> A seven-man, five-woman jury from a semi-rural county south of

> Houston deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before blaming

> the drug for killing Ernst in his sleep in 2001. Jurors rejected

> Merck's argument that Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a

> Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia.

>

> Merck response

> Skidmore, a member of Merck's defense team, said

today, " We

> believe that the plantiff did not meet the standard set by Texas

law

> to prove Vioxx caused Mr. Ernst's death. "

>

> " There is no reliable scientific evidence that shows Vioxx causes

> cardiac arrhythmias, which an autopsy showed was the cause of Mr.

> Ernst's death, along with coronary atherosclerosis. "

>

> Merck also contends the case did not call for punitive damages.

>

> " We believe that we have strong points to raise on appeal and are

> hopeful that the appeals process will correct the verdict, " said

> C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of

> Merck, in a written statement. " Our appeal is about fundamental

> rights to a fair trial. "

>

> The company will base its appeal on:

>

> — Allowing opening testimony to be given to the jury by unqualified

> experts.

>

> — Allowing opinion testimony that was not based on a reliable,

> scientific basis as required by Texas law.

>

> — Allowing evidence with no relevance to the issues of the case,

> which unfairly prejudiced the jury.

>

> — Allowing undisclosed surprise witness and expert testimony

> contrary to Texas law.

>

> Jury questions

> Ten of the 12 jurors had to answer the following questions in order

> to reach a verdict. The jury's decision was unanimous.:

>

> 1. Was there a defect in the marketing of Vioxx at the time it left

> the possession of Merck & Co., Inc., that was a producing cause of

> the death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer: Yes

>

> 2. Was there a design defect in Vioxx at the time it left the

> possession of Merck & Co., Inc. that was a producing cause of the

> death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer: yes

>

> 3. Did the negligence, if any, of Merck & Co. Inc., proximately

> cause the death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer: yes

>

> If jurors answer " yes " to questions No. 1,2 or 3, then they must

> answer the following.

>

> 4. What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and

> reasonably compensate Carol Ernst for her damages, if any,

resulting

> from the death of Bob Ernst?

>

> Answer separately, in dollars and cents, for damages, if any.

>

> a. Pecuniary loss sustained in the past. $100,000

>

> b. Pecuniary loss that, in reasonable probability, will be

sustained

> in the futurea. $350,000

>

> c. Loss of companionship and society sustained in the past. $2

> million

>

> d. Los of companionship and society that, in reasonable

probability,

> will be sustained in the future. $10 million

>

> e. Mental anguish sustained in the past. $2 million

>

> f. Mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, will be

sustained

> in the future. $10 million

>

> If jurors answer " yes " to questions No. 1, 2 or 3 and have inserted

> a sum of money in answer to question No. 4, then jurors will answer

> the following.

>

> 5. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to

Bob

> Ernst resulted from malice attributable to Merck & Co., Inc.?

>

> Answer: Yes

>

> If jurors answer " yes " to question No. 5, then they will answer the

> following question.

>

> 6. What sum of money, if any, should be assessed against Merck &

Co.

> Inc. and awarded to Carol Ernst as exemplary damages for the death

> of Bob Ernst?

>

> $229 million

>

>

>

> A little more than two hours into their second day of

deliberations,

> lawyers said jurors asked for a replay of testimony from Dr.

> Araneta, who attributed the 2001 death of Ernst to an

> irregular heartbeat secondary to clogged arteries. The panel had

yet

> to specify which part it wanted to hear, and any replaying of

> testimony must take place in open court.

>

> Vioxx-maker Merck & Co. used that autopsy to support the company's

> contention that the painkiller had nothing to do with

Ernst's

> death.

>

> Merck pulled the $2.5 billion seller from the market last year

after

> a study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if

> taken for 18 months or longer, but the company says no studies link

> Vioxx to arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat.

>

> Araneta, who now works at a hospital in the United Arab Emirates,

> testified that a blood clot probably caused a heart attack that

> triggered Ernst's arrhythmia. She said vigorous CPR likely

dislodged

> the clot so she couldn't find it during the autopsy, and his death

> was too sudden to leave evidence of the heart attack.

>

> Merck lost appeals to block jurors from hearing Araneta's testimony

> during the trial, which was presented via videotaped deposition.

>

> Araneta didn't blame Vioxx for causing a heart attack, noting she

> knew little of the drug in 2001. Other plaintiff's experts blamed

> the drug. Experts who testified for Merck said Araneta's written

> conclusions in the autopsy were valid, but her opinions expressed

> more than four years later were not.

>

> The trial that began July 14 was the first of more than 4,200

> lawsuits in the nation to go before a jury. The case has drawn

> national attention as the first test of Merck's legal fate, and

> analysts have speculated Merck's liability could reach $18 billion.

>

> Merck launched Vioxx in 1999 with great fanfare to relieve

arthritis

> and acute pain while cutting risk of stomach bleeding by inhibiting

> a blood-thinning enzyme. Some 20 million people took Vioxx when it

> was available to consumers.

>

> Lanier asked jurors to award her at least $40 million in damages.

>

> He suggested during closing arguments that her mental anguish and

> loss of companionship damages could reach $229 million or more.

> Lanier said Merck reaped that amount from Vioxx sales in the four

> months leading to the February 2002 addition of cardiovascular

> warnings on the drug's label. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration

> suggested the changes in October 2001 in light of a 2000 study that

> showed Vioxx users suffered five times as many heart attacks as

> those who took the older painkiller, naproxen.

>

> In Texas, punitive damages are capped at twice the amount of

> economic damages - lost pay - and up to $750,000 on top of non-

> economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of

> companionship. Non-economic damages have no limit in Texas except

in

> medical malpractice cases, which doesn't apply to the Ernst case.

>

> Shares of Merck & Co. fell $1.01, or 3.3 percent, to $29.40 in

> afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the verdict

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-

> -----------

> Chronicle reporters Ruth Rendon and , and The

> Associated Press contributed to this report.

> ruth.rendon@c...

>

> richard.stewart@c...