My thoughts on the pending litigation. The current 900 cases are related to osteonecrotic jaw (ONJ). From a purely strategic standpoint, Merck will stand behind the claim that ONJ can be caused by many things and is most often precipitated by Oral surgery and dental work. This will probably be enough plausible deniability for them to fend off the mass tort. I have read a blog written by one of their defense lawyers already making fun of the poor dental hygiene of one of the plaintiffs whose case was dismissed. Keep snickeringJames Beck at Medical Device and Drug Law blog. Pretty immature and imprudent for a Princeton educated lawyer. Here's why: Atypical Femur fractures in women taking Fosamax have fewer alternative explanations than the ONJ cases. Furthermore, what I've read indicates that these Fosamax fractures are amazingly consistent. They may be able to create plausible deniability when its only X-rays and retrospective medical records....but how about if/when doctors start doing tissue biopsies on the bones? That will be a tougher spot to squirm out of. If that ever happens, the specter of hundreds or thousands of women in front of juries detailing the excrutiating pain and the expert witnesses detailing the tell tale signs of dead bone will make their defense lawyers pull out their calculators in earnest. Those X-rays and the stories of spontaneous fracture and pain will RESONATE hard with a jury, and they know it.
Comment Reply
My thoughts on the pending litigation. The current 900 cases are related to osteonecrotic jaw (ONJ). From a purely strategic standpoint, Merck will stand behind the claim that ONJ can be caused by many things and is most often precipitated by Oral surgery and dental work. This will probably be enough plausible deniability for them to fend off the mass tort. I have read a blog written by one of their defense lawyers already making fun of the poor dental hygiene of one of the plaintiffs whose case was dismissed. Keep snickeringJames Beck at Medical Device and Drug Law blog. Pretty immature and imprudent for a Princeton educated lawyer. Here's why: Atypical Femur fractures in women taking Fosamax have fewer alternative explanations than the ONJ cases. Furthermore, what I've read indicates that these Fosamax fractures are amazingly consistent. They may be able to create plausible deniability when its only X-rays and retrospective medical records....but how about if/when doctors start doing tissue biopsies on the bones? That will be a tougher spot to squirm out of. If that ever happens, the specter of hundreds or thousands of women in front of juries detailing the excrutiating pain and the expert witnesses detailing the tell tale signs of dead bone will make their defense lawyers pull out their calculators in earnest. Those X-rays and the stories of spontaneous fracture and pain will RESONATE hard with a jury, and they know it.
March 25, 2010 - 12:52pmThis Comment
Reply