Drug Injury Watch

Side Effects News & Reports

From 2005 to the present

Vioxx Judge Wilson In Texas Might Rule For Merck On Preemption Issue And Dismiss Ledbetter Case

WSJ Reports That Judge Wilson’s Ruling In This One Vioxx Case Could Affect Other 1000 Texas Vioxx Cases

(Posted by Tom Lamb at DrugInjuryWatch.com)

Reporter Heather Won Tesoriero broke the news in an April 13, 2007 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article about Texas Vioxx cases:

A ruling from a Texas judge coming as soon as Monday is expected to undercut the legal foundation for all 1,000 Vioxx cases brought against Merck & Co. by Texas plaintiffs, providing a potentially significant boon to Merck’s defense efforts.

The judge has informed both sides in a state-court Vioxx case that he will dismiss it based on a recently finalized Food and Drug Administration rule, according to a person familiar with the matter. He then told attorneys involved in some of the other 1,000 Vioxx cases in Texas state courts that his ruling could affect the whole group.

For background, as in New Jersey and California, all Vioxx personal injury and wrongful death cases filed in the Texas state court system have been "consolidated" before one judge. In Texas, the judge overseeing the approximate 1000 Texas Vioxx cases is Harris County District Court Judge Randy Wilson.  In New Jersey, Judge Carol Higbee has control over about 14,000 Vioxx cases, and in California Judge Victoria Chaney has an estimated 4,500 Vioxx cases on her docket.

This particular legal ruling by Judge Wilson was made in the Vioxx case involving Ruby Ledbetter, who alleged that her heart attack was caused by her use of Vioxx, which she had taken for more than a year before that heart attack.

Returning to the April 13 WSJ article by Ms. Tesoriero:

  • Judge Wilson said he was granting Merck’s motion to dismiss Ms. Ledbetter’s case, citing an FDA policy rule issued in February 2006. That rule says the agency’s approval process trumps state law in how manufacturers of health-care products must warn consumers about their potential risks [in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits like the Ledbetter Vioxx case].
  • [Judge Wilson]… told the attorneys he will suspend the [other 1000 Texas Vioxx] lawsuits until the state’s appeals court rules on his judgment. He said he would issue his written order as soon as next week, according to the person with knowledge of the matter.

Merck’s current position on this significant development was reported in an April 13, 2007 Reuters article about the reported Texas Vioxx ruling in favor of Merck:

"We can’t confirm or deny the report, but we will analyze it once we see what the Judge actually says in his decision," Kent Jarrell, a spokesman for Merck’s outside counsel, told Reuters.

No doubt that the eyes of many people concerned with the Vioxx litigation will be on Texas state court Judge Randy Wilson next week.

9 responses to “Vioxx Judge Wilson In Texas Might Rule For Merck On Preemption Issue And Dismiss Ledbetter Case”

  1. LILY Avatar
    LILY

    Victims of the pharmaceutical company Merck:
    Are you, or one of your love ones next? If they are not made accountable you can count on it!
    Please copy – past and send this as a e-mail to very one you know, word of e-mail like word of mouth is very powerful, ask them to keep it going for the victims that can’t get justice in our courts.
    FACTS:
    New England Journal of Medicine reaffirms that Merck lied about Vioxx safety
    Three top scientists in the world Gregory D. Curfman, M.D., Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D., and Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. are taking on Merck that has the reputation of destroying the career of anyone who has ever questioned the safety of Vioxx – a drug that has killed as many as 60,000 Americans, according to the FDA.
    FACTS:
    Dr. Eric Topol, chairman of the cardiovascular medicine department at the Cleveland Clinic, is one of the top heart doctors in the world. He also happens to be the one of those rare American doctors who is not in bed with the pharmaceutical companies.
    Dr. Topol also made another important point that shows how Merck is not disclosing the facts. According to him, Vioxx can be lethal any time after a patient starts to take the drug.
    He also blasted Merck’s argument that the company knew about the risks of the drug only in September 2004 when it decided to recall it. Dr. Topol thinks that the risks were known as early as 1999.
    FACT:
    Merck relentlessly continued its ongoing attack on Vioxx victims. In a series of statements released yesterday by the firm, Merck is treating Vioxx victims as if they are the ones who have done something wrong. Forget about even a word of apology for the deaths and injuries or even a mention of the pain caused to those who consumed its product. On the other hand, the management team of Merck went on an all-out attack against Vioxx lawyers and victims and proclaimed that it was ready to fight anyone who ends up in court with a Vioxx lawsuit.
    Fact
    Lot of documents have emerged that show that not only did Merck knew about the dangerous side effects of Vioxx as early as 2000, the company also hid these from the public and the FDA
    According to FDA estimates, as many as 60,000 Americans are dead after taking Vioxx.
    Lily

    Reply
  2. Tom Lamb Avatar
    Tom Lamb

    I certainly share your concern and frustration regarding the terrible effect that this preemption ruling would have — if it is upheld by the Texas appellate courts — as concerns the accountability of the drug companies for their unsafe drugs, past, present, and future.
    Let’s hope that justice prevails, ultimately.
    Thanks for reading Drug Injury Watch.
    Tom Lamb

    Reply
  3. john ballard Avatar
    john ballard

    this is clearly, at least as far as i’m concerned, a republican judge making a corporate favorable decision. he may not like his chances in his next election bid( being a republican) but he is what he is and needs support from the home team. speaking of that does anyone know where his election dollars come from. i have not heard any scathing criticisms of him by plaintiff’s advocates, however this is clearly trying to force a square law into a round hole. i guess there’s always a first time. perhaps harris county should do what dallas did, fire all the republican judges and replace them with democratic ones. simultaneously we should recall that foolish tort reform act that was passed.

    Reply
  4. Tom Lamb Avatar
    Tom Lamb

    As you may know, the initial news reports about Judge Wilson’s dismissal of the Ledbetter Vioxx case — including the WSJ article which I cited in my post, above — stated that the judge was basing his ruling on the FDA rule “preamble” about federal preemption. It turns out, however, Judge Wilson dismissed the Ledbetter Vioxx case based on a Texas statute which gives deference to the FDA-approved label, such that a drug company like Merck cannot be held liable for any “failure to warn” claim as regards Vioxx in Texas. Accordingly, your suggestion that so-called “tort reform” in Texas is the problem, here, is right on point.
    Let’s hope the Texas appellate courts see that justice is not served by giving Merck and other drug companies a “pass” on this type of liability.
    Thanks for reading Drug Injury Watch.
    Tom Lamb

    Reply
  5. not a gov .of the people Avatar
    not a gov .of the people

    To all vioxx victims:
    We all know that our gov. is in bed with the pharmaceutical co. so forget about any justice in our courts because it trickles all the way down.

    Reply
  6. robert womack Avatar
    robert womack

    Judge Wilson’s Ruling…
    “MUST NOT STAND”. It is biased toward Merck & Co. This must go to the highest court in the land, we the people cannot allow this Judge to remain on the Bench in Texas or any other State. My heart attack
    almost killed me back in November
    of 2000. My Doctor put me on Vioxx
    @ 50mg to help control back pain
    in 1998. We must all do our part to force Merck to Settle this situation. Perhaps the FDA should order that the above mentioned 60,000 people that they say died as a result of taking Vioxx be exhumed at Mercks expense as a minimum! There must be evidence to show cause there.
    I have not been able to work for the last 9 years as direct result of taking Vioxx and I will fight to the death to be compensated for my pain and suffering as well as my wife’s.
    This is just wrong all around and Judge Wilson you are wrong for Texas. You should step down.
    RJW 5th Generation Texan

    Reply
  7. Tom Lamb Avatar
    Tom Lamb

    I believe that this issue of “FDA preemption” is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually for final resolution.
    Unfortunately, the Texas Vioxx litigation has stalled due to Judge Wilson’s ruling.
    In the New Jersey Vioxx litigation Judge Higbee ruled against Merck on this issue, as did Judge Fallon in the federal court Vioxx MDL.
    I fully understand your frustration with the situation.
    Thanks for reading Drug Injury Watch.
    Tom Lamb

    Reply
  8. Bert Cantrell Avatar
    Bert Cantrell

    I had three heart attacks while taking Vioxx for over 35 months. Lucky I do a lot of swimming and don’t smoke or drink. I don’t want to put Merch out of business but they should own up to why they lied about the damage Vioxx can cause people.

    Reply
  9. Tom Lamb Avatar
    Tom Lamb

    Agreed, in a country where we (should) emphasize accountability at the corporate and individual levels, both, Merck should compensate those valid claims of people who had a heart attack or stroke while using Vioxx daily during the months leading up to their cardiovascular event.
    Thanks for reading Drug Injury Watch.
    Tom Lamb

    Reply

Leave a Reply to robert womack Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *