Message To Big Pharms: Lying To The Public For Profit Will Backfire

[jpeyton]

ANGLETON, Texas - A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable for the death of a man who took the once-popular painkiller Vioxx.

Jurors awarded Robert 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.

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.

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a fan of the big Pharms, so I can't say I'm against this verdict. For decades, the industry has focused on profits by designing drugs that cure the symptoms, NOT the ailment. They have kept the cost of prescription drugs in the US high, while our neighbors to the north pay significantly less for the same stuff. They have spent countless billions on TV advertising that could have been better served in R&D.

Best of luck to Merck. There are 4,200 state and federal lawsuits in the books over Vioxx. Bwahahahaha...

 

[Genx87]

This is like the tobacco industry. The losses from the lawsuit are passed onto the consumer.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Best of luck to Merck. There are 4,200 state and federal lawsuits in the books over Vioxx. Bwahahahaha...

or to the people that work at the Drug Companies. They know they are working for scum and proud of it, same goes for Political supporters too.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is like the tobacco industry. The losses from the lawsuit are passed onto the consumer.

Simple economics says that a company cannot simply increase their cost to the consumer to cover all their losses.

It's not like I was paying three times as much for a plane ticket after the airline industry suffered massive losses in 2001. Prices stayed relatively the same because of competition in the industry. If one company overcharges, another will pick up the slack.

BTW, anybody know when Moore's new documentary on the health care industry is coming out? Haven't heard much about it for a year.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is like the tobacco industry. The losses from the lawsuit are passed onto the consumer.

Simple economics says that a company cannot simply increase their cost to the consumer to cover all their losses.

It's not like I was paying three times as much for a plane ticket after the airline industry suffered massive losses in 2001. Prices stayed relatively the same because of competition in the industry. If one company overcharges, another will pick up the slack.

BTW, anybody know when Moore's new documentary on the Pharms is coming out? Haven't heard much about it for a year.

It's called "Sicko" and he hasn't started a minute of Reel time yet.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Anyone that's been here long knows I'm not a fan of Big Pharma. But IMO this decision is quite suspect. My understanding is that it's highly unlikely that Vioxx killed this guy. It certainly may have contributed to his death but causation just isn't likely with available evidence.

Now it's abudantly clear that Merck tried to downplay general cardiovascular risks with Vioxx. If I had to guess, I would say the jury probably responded to that element for which there's abundant evidence.

I thought the USSC . . . in a masterful stroke of "conservative" judicial activism . . . ruled that punitive damage awards could not exceed a certain amount?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is like the tobacco industry. The losses from the lawsuit are passed onto the consumer.

Simple economics says that a company cannot simply increase their cost to the consumer to cover all their losses.

It's not like I was paying three times as much for a plane ticket after the airline industry suffered massive losses in 2001. Prices stayed relatively the same because of competition in the industry. If one company overcharges, another will pick up the slack.

BTW, anybody know when Moore's new documentary on the health care industry is coming out? Haven't heard much about it for a year.

Some of merck's products have no substitutes. Congratulations, Carol, for boosting the precription drug prices for everyone.

I wouldn't be surprised to see other big pharma companies raise prices on their products as well to protect themselves.

CAP lawsuits against doctors and big pharma companies! Nobody wins except the trial lawyers.

It's funny though jpeyton. Drugs are cheaper in canada due to price fixing. Hardly something that someone who believes in "simple economics" would subscribe to.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is like the tobacco industry. The losses from the lawsuit are passed onto the consumer.

Simple economics says that a company cannot simply increase their cost to the consumer to cover all their losses.

It's not like I was paying three times as much for a plane ticket after the airline industry suffered massive losses in 2001. Prices stayed relatively the same because of competition in the industry. If one company overcharges, another will pick up the slack.

BTW, anybody know when Moore's new documentary on the health care industry is coming out? Haven't heard much about it for a year.

How many billions were levied against the tobacco industry? They kept on trucking by raising the price of cigarettes. I bet you the same will happen here. 250 million is chump change to these guys. They raise their prices 10% and they covered the cost of the lawsuit.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Anyone that's been here long knows I'm not a fan of Big Pharma. But IMO this decision is quite suspect. My understanding is that it's highly unlikely that Vioxx killed this guy. It certainly may have contributed to his death but causation just isn't likely with available evidence.

Now it's abudantly clear that Merck tried to downplay general cardiovascular risks with Vioxx. If I had to guess, I would say the jury probably responded to that element for which there's abundant evidence.

I thought the USSC . . . in a masterful stroke of "conservative" judicial activism . . . ruled that punitive damage awards could not exceed a certain amount?

Somewhat.

Text

dditionally, while the Supreme Court shied away from imposing a bright-line ratio that a punitive damages award can not exceed, it did state "few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process." In other cases, the Supreme Court has cited that a 4-1 ratio might be close to the upper limit of constitutional impropriety.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm not a fan of the big Pharms, so I can't say I'm against this verdict. For decades, the industry has focused on profits by designing drugs that cure the symptoms, NOT the ailment. They have kept the cost of prescription drugs in the US high, while our neighbors to the north pay significantly less for the same stuff. They have spent countless billions on TV advertising that could have been better served in R&D.

Best of luck to Merck. There are 4,200 state and federal lawsuits in the books over Vioxx. Bwahahahaha...

I just love when someone who has never taken a drug nor ever suffered the symptoms of a disease that posts complete and utter BS. The entire familiy of Cox-2 inhibators from which Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex and Moxci (sp) were developed were designed to specifically target the cause of the arthritis pain. As the first NSAID's in a decade I can say afirmativly that even though every drug didn't work the same for everyone, everyone was able to find one drug in the family that worked very well. In fact far better than any other non-narcotic pain killer on the market. Vioxx was a fvcking wonder drug, and just because 7 additional people (over the 1100 person control group) died in a 18+ month 2200+ person study it was pulled from the market. It's assounding that our system is so fvcked up that we pull a drug from the market rather than simply tell people the risks and let them make the choice.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct
2. The disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award.
3. The difference between the punitive damages awarded and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases

Judicial activism . . . make it up as you go.

Some would argue that all it takes is #1 to justify a BIG judgment. Real bad behavior = real bad punishment . . . sounds fair.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm not a fan of the big Pharms, so I can't say I'm against this verdict. For decades, the industry has focused on profits by designing drugs that cure the symptoms, NOT the ailment. They have kept the cost of prescription drugs in the US high, while our neighbors to the north pay significantly less for the same stuff. They have spent countless billions on TV advertising that could have been better served in R&D.

Best of luck to Merck. There are 4,200 state and federal lawsuits in the books over Vioxx. Bwahahahaha...

I just love when someone who has never taken a drug nor ever suffered the symptoms of a disease that posts complete and utter BS. The entire familiy of Cox-2 inhibators from which Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex and Moxci (sp) were developed were designed to specifically target the cause of the arthritis pain. As the first NSAID's in a decade I can say afirmativly that even though every drug didn't work the same for everyone, everyone was able to find one drug in the family that worked very well. In fact far better than any other non-narcotic pain killer on the market. Vioxx was a fvcking wonder drug, and just because 7 additional people (over the 1100 person control group) died in a 18+ month 2200+ person study it was pulled from the market. It's assounding that our system is so fvcked up that we pull a drug from the market rather than simply tell people the risks and let them make the choice.

I actually find it amazing out of 1100 people 7 mote died and that causes an uproar. It isnt like we are talking about 70 or 700 here. 7 that could easily be a result of an error margin.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct
2. The disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award.
3. The difference between the punitive damages awarded and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases

Judicial activism . . . make it up as you go.

Some would argue that all it takes is #1 to justify a BIG judgment. Real bad behavior = real bad punishment . . . sounds fair.

$10 million is a big judgement. $250 million is ludicrous.

If you want freedom in the market, how about we stop forcing companies to insure the elderly, the smokers, the fatties, and high risk patient?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I actually find it amazing out of 1100 people 7 mote died and that causes an uproar. It isnt like we are talking about 70 or 700 here. 7 that could easily be a result of an error margin.

Actually the way these studies are conducted margins of error are calculated and easily controlled. Phase III studies are a work of art, that's why they take years to complete. But to say that 7 died in the control group and 14 died in the test group and say that your risk of death is 50% higher while on the drug is a complete lie.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

People hate pharmaceutical companies anyway. Maybe they will be glad when they all close their doors.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: zendari

$10 million is a big judgement. $250 million is ludicrous.

If you want freedom in the market, how about we stop forcing companies to insure the elderly, the smokers, the fatties, and high risk patient?

Not really, you need to be able to have judgements high enough to make it not worth cheating. They certianly made more then $10 million in profit off of Vioxx. If we capped the settlement at $10 million, we are simply telling them that if they lie or cheat they better be sure to make more then 10 million in profit. You simply can not put a cap on lawsuits because all that really does is put a lower limit to cheating.

 

[Nitemare]

2 words...Tort Reform

Every member of that jury needs to be beaten and should never be allowed in a court room evAr.

God forbid one figures in the long-term earnings of a wal-mart employee in there...

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Best of luck to Merck. There are 4,200 state and federal lawsuits in the books over Vioxx. Bwahahahaha...

or to the people that work at the Drug Companies. They know they are working for scum and proud of it, same goes for Political supporters too.

First time I've said this, but STFU Dave.
Most people (myself included) who work for big pharmas are hard working altruistic people (and ironically often liberals) who dedicate their work to saving people's lives. Things get a bit FUBAR'd by they time they reach way upper management unfortunately (and manages to turnthat good will against us), but people will always demand the products we create. Wait until your father has a heart attack, mother has cancer, or your brother has diabetes. Who are you going to come to then?


This settlement is utter bullsh!t. $250M is not chump change. Esp if this enboldens 3999 more lawsuits (and surely more to work their way out now big money is drawn.) This has real consequences. Many hardworking people will lose thier jobs, research will be slashed, plants wil close, and resources will be pulled from less or non-profitable medicines (like those for rare diseases which these blockbusters cover the cost of.) Not to mention drug prices are going to rise further.

This isn't the F'ing lottery, the money has to come from somewhere. This is senseless to destroy an industry leading company like Merck apart. In the end this harms everybody except for lawyers, and newly 1/4 billionare widows (who may or may not have lost family due to the drug, but hey F'em Pharma is TEH EVIL.)

:|

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
2 words...Tort Reform

Every member of that jury needs to be beaten and should never be allowed in a court room evAr.

God forbid one figures in the long-term earnings of a wal-mart employee in there...

This is not an accident this test case was in Texas. They are known for laws and juries that readily lead to multi hundred million $ awards.

There was a case 2-3yrs ago where a woman was awarded $1 BILLION, for a Phen-Fen related death. The mordibly-obese person took the drug for a few months (~2,) then dies 5yrs later from a heart condition that was a listed potential side-effect of the drug. The death couldn't even be conclusively linked to the drug, but no matter, give em a billion anyway. Let me go look for a link...

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Nitemare
2 words...Tort Reform

Every member of that jury needs to be beaten and should never be allowed in a court room evAr.

God forbid one figures in the long-term earnings of a wal-mart employee in there...

This is not an accident this test case was in Texas. They are known for laws and juries that readily lead to multi hundred million $ awards.

There was a case 2-3yrs ago where a woman was awarded $1 BILLION, for a Phen-Fen related death. The mordibly-obese person took the drug for a few months (~2,) then dies 5yrs later from a heart condition that was a listed potential side-effect of the drug. The death couldn't even be conclusively linked to the drug, but no matter, give em a billion anyway. Let me go look for a link...

the legal system makes the baby jesus sad...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: zendari

$10 million is a big judgement. $250 million is ludicrous.

If you want freedom in the market, how about we stop forcing companies to insure the elderly, the smokers, the fatties, and high risk patient?

Not really, you need to be able to have judgements high enough to make it not worth cheating. They certianly made more then $10 million in profit off of Vioxx. If we capped the settlement at $10 million, we are simply telling them that if they lie or cheat they better be sure to make more then 10 million in profit. You simply can not put a cap on lawsuits because all that really does is put a lower limit to cheating.

$10 million per person. If vioxx is truly dangerous there would be more than 1 "victim".

People hate pharmaceutical companies anyway. Maybe they will be glad when they all close their doors.

I don't mind that. Remove prescription drugs, all the old people who leech on medicare with a dozen pills can drop dead. Healthcare crisis solved.

 

[RichPLS]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
2 words...Tort Reform

Every member of that jury needs to be beaten and should never be allowed in a court room evAr.

God forbid one figures in the long-term earnings of a wal-mart employee in there...

Tort reform is wonderful isn't it. Everyone wins except for the victims. Reform designed and written by attorneys to limit damages to victims who allegedly were harmed in some way and are seeking compensation, which laws leave this up to a jury to decide (fair trail by the people for the people), yet blame of course falls on these victims, so lets limit monetary awards to them and carefully construct reform so victims get less yet attorneys get theirs as do big corporations are spared these costs.

Everyone wins except for the victims.

The real problem is the attorneys, which is where the reform needs to apply, not to the victims.
Caps should be placed on attorneys fees, this way if a jury decides an amount is just, the attorneys fee is capped at a certain amount, not the reverse, the way attorneys have designed it.
Face it, a lot of big win cases and large cash lawsuits are spurred on by greedy attorneys wanting their cut larger, thus ribbing and egging on the victim to coerce them into not accepting offers and go for the gold. this is what needs fixing.

 

[Bitek]

Link to $1B Texas/Wyeth jury award thread

Both the Wyeth and Merck settlements were in Houston burbs...


Wyeth in total settled for $21 Billion, and had huge effects on the company and its employees. Merck's liability could far excede this.

The rest of the industry is scared sh!tless, as few death could lead to the destruction of the company

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is like the tobacco industry. The losses from the lawsuit are passed onto the American consumer.

Fixed it for you. As we all know, the first world nations of this world implement price controls to prevent price gouging.

 

[jpeyton]

Bah, the drug industry is still profits over people. Has been that way for decades.

Let's see, a billion dollars for R&D, or a billion dollars to advertise dick pills on TV. That's an easy choice.