Vioxx News - Vioxx Information - Vioxx Attorney - Vioxx Lawsuit - Vioxx Lawyer - Vioxx Stroke - Recall Vioxx - Vioxx Class Action Lawsuit - Vioxx Claim - Vioxx Law Suit - Vioxx Class Action - Celebrex - Bextra

Saturday, January 20, 2007

LA judge again denies mistrial in Merck Vioxx cases

Reuters
January 18, 2007

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Los Angeles judge on Thursday denied attorney requests to declare a mistrial in a case of two men who blame Merck & Co.'s withdrawn painkiller Vioxx for their heart attacks, according to representatives for both the defense and the plaintiffs.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and Merck submitted motions seeking a mistrial in the trial that has dragged on since late October and included a lengthy break in jury deliberations over the holidays and the recent replacement of one of the jurors after she informed the judge that a relative had taken Vioxx.

Jurors in the case are expected to resume deliberations after hearing re-arguments earlier in the day in response to questions regarding whether prescribing physicians recognized the potential risks or side effects of the drug.

Lawyers for plaintiffs Rudolph Arrigale and Lawrence Appell have argued in the consolidated dual trial that Merck failed to disclose known dangers of the medicine.

"The passage of time adversely impacts the ability of the jury to deliberate accurately and fairly," Arrigale's attorney Thomas Brandi told Reuters, referring to the fact that jurors were given the case before the Christmas holidays and had a nearly three-week break in deliberations.

Merck has sought a mistrial on grounds that arguments by the plaintiffs were "inflammatory," said Merck spokeswoman Casey Stavropoulos.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney last Thursday denied previous requests for a mistrial from both sides after a juror was replaced by an alternate, forcing deliberations to begin anew.

At the time she told attorneys that too much time had been invested in the case to not reach a verdict.

Lehman Brothers said in a research note on Thursday that it would not be surprised if the jury is unable to make a final decision and the requisite number of votes needed for a verdict is not reached.

"This will be a case not only for appeal, but may still be a case which ends in a mistrial in our estimation," the note said.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home