Nobody deserves $47MM for this type of injury regardless of the circumstances. If the award is to stand, give the pltf. the statutory limit and put the rest in a fund to benefit other legitimate causes.
I agree that $47 mil. is probably more than he needs to be indemnified but…
I am not aware of the facts of this case so please correct me if I’m wrong. Is it true that Vioxx increases risk of heart attack? Is it true that this man suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx? Is it true that Merck should have done more research before releasing the drug?
Because if all of that is true then the plaintiff should be awarded punitive damages. Sounds to me like Merck wanted to cut corners (and costs). They sure are paying for it now huh?
ES: you’re right, we don’t know all the facts. This guy could have had other risk factors. Here’s what should concern us.
1. he lost the first trial. Apparently another jury didn’t buy his story.
2. suddenly “new evidence” becomes a factor. If his attorney couldn’t find the evidence during the first discovery period, how does it “suddently” show up after he loses the first case?
3. juries have no common sense. They aren’t punishing Merck beyond increasing their liability insurance premiums.
4. unjust enrichment. Nobody needs that kind of money, particularly at age 61. There are no dependants aside from a spouse. It’s fun money.
5. the attorney will get 40-50% off the top, then expenes will be paid before the plaintiff see’s nickel. $20million profit on one case?
Hmmm…interesting. I see your point iceman. I am curious as to how many other risk factors he had for a heart attack. Was he obese or a smoker? I think being a postal worker in itself is a risk.
I took Vioxx for 8 years..yes it raised my BP, but if you ask most of the people with Rheumatoid disease who took it …They would give their right arm to get it back risk and all. I agree that IF Merck knew and witheld this info there sould be punitive damage, BUT how much is reasonable and bootm line Merck’s Insurance company pays, their rates go up and everyone who buys a prescription from this company pays. It will also slow the research into new drugs.
Nobody deserves $47MM for this type of injury regardless of the circumstances. If the award is to stand, give the pltf. the statutory limit and put the rest in a fund to benefit other legitimate causes.
I agree that $47 mil. is probably more than he needs to be indemnified but…
I am not aware of the facts of this case so please correct me if I’m wrong. Is it true that Vioxx increases risk of heart attack? Is it true that this man suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx? Is it true that Merck should have done more research before releasing the drug?
Because if all of that is true then the plaintiff should be awarded punitive damages. Sounds to me like Merck wanted to cut corners (and costs). They sure are paying for it now huh?
ES: you’re right, we don’t know all the facts. This guy could have had other risk factors. Here’s what should concern us.
1. he lost the first trial. Apparently another jury didn’t buy his story.
2. suddenly “new evidence” becomes a factor. If his attorney couldn’t find the evidence during the first discovery period, how does it “suddently” show up after he loses the first case?
3. juries have no common sense. They aren’t punishing Merck beyond increasing their liability insurance premiums.
4. unjust enrichment. Nobody needs that kind of money, particularly at age 61. There are no dependants aside from a spouse. It’s fun money.
5. the attorney will get 40-50% off the top, then expenes will be paid before the plaintiff see’s nickel. $20million profit on one case?
Hmmm…interesting. I see your point iceman. I am curious as to how many other risk factors he had for a heart attack. Was he obese or a smoker? I think being a postal worker in itself is a risk.
I took Vioxx for 8 years..yes it raised my BP, but if you ask most of the people with Rheumatoid disease who took it …They would give their right arm to get it back risk and all. I agree that IF Merck knew and witheld this info there sould be punitive damage, BUT how much is reasonable and bootm line Merck’s Insurance company pays, their rates go up and everyone who buys a prescription from this company pays. It will also slow the research into new drugs.