Question and Answer on the Vioxx Cases with Mark Lanier
The Texas Lawyer has a good article on The Vioxx Verdict: Q & A with Mark Lanier. A sampling:
Q: What was the biggest obstacle you perceived going into the trial?
A: Mark Lanier: Causation. Bob Ernst's autopsy report stated that the cause of death was arrhythmia secondary to coronary atherosclerosis. While Bob had some type of clot or thromboemboylic event that caused the arrhythmia, Merck was splitting hairs saying that no studies ever linked Vioxx to arrhythmias. While this assertion was patently wrong, it could have been easily confusing to a jury.Q: This case was supposed to be "unwinnable" because Ernst died of an arrhythmia, not a heart attack. Do you truly believe Vioxx contributed to his death, or does it only matter that you convinced a jury of such?
A: Lanier: Not a doubt in my mind. Everyone agreed the arrhythmia was caused by "ischemia" or inadequate oxygen to the heart. Ernst had 50 - 75 percent blocked arteries. Those are open 25-50 percent. They were open enough that he ran marathons, competed in triathlons, rode a 62 mile bike race a week earlier, ran 5 miles that day. His heart got plenty of oxygen for those stresses. So the question is: either he had a clot (our position) or for some unknown reason while sleeping his heart's oxygen requirements exceed the needs while running a marathon. Merck took the absurd position that Ernst's heart was having excessive oxygen requirements while sleeping. They actually had experts say that Ernst must have been having really bad dreams or sleep apnea. What is more likely, a clot?
Q: What piece or pieces of liability evidence did the jury consider most important in their deliberations?
A: Lanier: The sales documents on liability. The medical textbooks on causation.
The entire question and answer session is worth a read. Thanks to John Day of Day on Torts for the heads up on this article.
