Articles Posted in Products Liability

Public Citizen has great information about roof crush and rollover incidents on its website. The site informs about the dangers of rollovers and the automobile industry’s knowledge of those dangers.

The site has a study of 54 rollovers and concludes that “the majority of roof damage occurs on the side of the roof opposite the side that leads into the roll. When the leading side strikes the ground, the vehicle’s glass shatters and the roof pillars buckle, meaning that when the far side subsequently hits the ground, the roof strength has already been severely compromised. Consequently, the roof collapses, killing or severely injuring the occupant on that side. Moreover, further rolling can continue to crush the entire.”

The site reports on another study, “Roof Crush as a Source of Injury in Rollover Crashes,” by Dr. Martha Bidez, Dr. John Cochran, and Dottie King. ACcording to Public Citizen, the study demonstrates: “1) Roof crush is linked to serious injury in rollovers, 2) the industry’s theory that occupants “dive” into the roof is false based on the industry’s own testing data, and 3) dynamic rollover tests produce repeatable results when viewed in the framework of occupant injury and are correlated to real-world data on rollover crashes.”

Guidant Corporation, a medical device manufacturer, did not tell doctors or patients for three years that a unit implanted in an estimated 24,000 people that is designed to shock a faltering heart contains a flaw that has caused a small number of those units to short-circuit and malfunction.

Defibrillators are put in people whose heart cannot be relied upon to operate consistently on its own. Of course, if your heart does not maintain an appropriate rhythm over a given period of time, you can die.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Joseph Smith, a corporate representative, said “We choose to extraordinarily communicate [to doctors or patients] when we have a product that does not live up to our expectations.” Apparently, then, Guidant expected that at least 26 of the units it manufactured with the expectation of helping people to live would short-circuit and malfunction and determined that that risk was not a significant one (at least for its company). Guidant knew that twenty-five of those units failed before the death of a 21-year old college student from Minnesota, who died when his device failed. His death is the only known death from the malfunction of the device.

A jury verdict for several plaintiffs who alleged that they were injured by the weight-loss supplement Metabolife 356 was recently reversed by the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals.

The Court ruled that the expert testimony offered by the Plaintiff on the causation issue should not have survived at Daubert challenge. The Court said that neither expert used a reliable methadology to prove that Metabolife 356 causes strokes or heart attacks, either generally or in the plaintiffs. The 49-page opinion is a reminder of the risk of pushing the envelope on “new” products cases.

Read this release hot of the press from the New York Times:

May 5, 2005

Merck Announces Resignation of Chief and Names Replacement

A new article from Bloomberg reports that changes may have to be made to an Annals of Internal Medicine article linking Vioxx to heart problems.

Here is the complete article.

Tuesday, May 3, 2005

The Bush Administration’s solution to most problems is to cut taxes for people who make more than $100,000 per year. The Department of Homeland Security has figured out a different way to make our society safer from the threat of terrorists – extend immunity from suit to companies who make defective products related to the fight against terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the his department has “not fully succeeded in exploiting” legislation that limits the extent companies can be sued for problematic products.

“I have a great deal of respect and understanding of the importance of our legal system,” said Chertoff, a former federal prosecutor and appeals court judge. “But I also know how important it is that the legal system not create unduly high and burdensome transaction costs that do not allow us to make the kinds of rational decisions we have to make in order to protect ourselves.” Read more here.

According to a press report, both sides to the nation’s first Vioxx trial have asked the judge to continue the trial date.

The trial is set for May 23, 2005. Both sides asked for a continuance because federal judge Eldon E. Fallon, the judge presiding over the Vioxx MDL, asked that the case be continued so that it would not interfere with the federal litigation. That request is not binding on the state trial judge because state cases are not part of the MDL.

The hearing is set for Tuesday, May 3, 2005.

For an unflattering look at the current state of the fen phen litigation look at this article from The American Lawyer.

The Food and Drug Administration has asked Pfizer to withdraw Bextra from the market “because the overall risk versus benefit profile for the drug is unfavorable.” Pfizer has agreed to do so pending further discussions with the agency. Here is a the FDA press release.

The press release goes on to say that the “FDA is asking the manufacturers of all OTC NSAIDs to revise their labels to include more specific information about the potential CV and GI risks, and information to assist consumers in the safe use of the drugs.” Celebrex is being allowed to stay on the market with revised labels.

This probably means that the FDA will not allow Vioxx back on the market. I will keep you updated.

Our firm is handling Vioxx cases. The MDL Panel has just sent all of the cases to the ED of Louisana for pretrial proceedings. Judge Fallon will be handling the case.

The judge has set up a website for pretrial orders and proceedings. Here it is.