Asking because so often drug companies pay out using their ENORMOUS profits to ensure they win regardless of their having hidden data, that legitimate litigants (or their surviving relatives) have no chance even when they’re suffered harm - or death.

I understand that Murk made Vioxx look safer by “manipulating data” and feel that perhaps that it is they who should be considered as being the bad guys for doing so, but also understand that this way of thinking isn’t popular with Pharma guys. and that critisizing patients is a better game.

Thousands of cases that were originally filed with no evidence of either harm (no MI’s or strokes) and/or no evidence of the patients having ever taken Vioxx.

Those were filed very quickly as part of the thousands of other cases hoping to be part of settlements.

Now that the big settlement was agreed to between the parties, with certain conditions requiring proof of damage and proof of Vioxx prescription…thousands of cases have magically disappeared.

Not perhaps the MOST diplomatic of phrases to use under the circumstances?

In response to your question, I don’t believe compensatory or punitive damages are warranted in any case where the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate cause and effect. I believe the laws permit them to claim damages even if the drug was only “contributory” in causing the damage, but where this was not proven, it doesn’t make sense to award anything.

I would go as far as demanding compensatory and punitive damages the other way. In other words, if a plaintiff brings a case that is clearly flawed and has non-existent or made up evidence (as in some phen-phen cases), or if jurors are paid off by plaintiffs, the they should pay not only for all of the defense costs, but also damages for loss of reputation, etc.

I am OK in bringing cases that have merit, but not OK in non-meritous cases that are brought for the sole purpose of extorting settlements. Not only bacause of the damage that they caus to the defending companies, but because they have indirect impacts on thousands of other patients who are denied valuable therapies.

Re: Vioxx, I refer you again to the McDarby appeals decision that Ed recently posted here. I would be genuinely interested to hear whether you believe the appeals judges were wrong to uphold compensatory damages in that case. This goes for anyone else too who would like to comment.

It’s easy to wave flags - harder to wrestle with documented history (although I don’t suggest it is simple).

Now we need a list of the plaintiff lawyers who have been found to “Cheatem, Dewit and Howe”. Either blatant cases like this one, or chest-pounding cases like some Vioxx cases where they had no good evidence but hoping to extort.