LB Blast from the Past: That Dusty Little Vioxx Trial

[WSJ_law_blog]

Healthcare reporter (and LB alum), Heather Won Tesoriero, has sent along this dispatch on the Vioxx trial:

A Texas state appellate court today kicked a multimillion dollar Vioxx verdict to the curb. Two years ago, a jury awarded Felicia Garza $32 million over her husband’s fatal heart attack, a sum that was later reduced to $7.75 million under state damages caps. Another bummer for the plaintiffs: they’re excluded from Merck’s $4.85 billion Vioxx settlement, which it unveiled last November.

Back in 2006 the trial took place in the dusty border town of Rio Grande City, Texas. (Think “A Civil Action” meets “No Country for Old Men.”) The case had a number of small-town aspects to it. During voir dire, when lawyers asked prospective jurors to raise their hands if they knew any members of the Garza family, all but a few hands shot up in the air. Jurors said that they believed their relationships with the Garzas wouldn’t influence their ability to be impartial in the matter. The plot of the small-town trial later thickened when the WSJ reported that juror Jose Rios had a long-standing financial relationship with Garza. The widowed schoolteacher loaned Rios between $5,000 and $10,000 over the years, an arrangement that wasn’t disclosed during jury selection.

So, how did the loan deal come out? A whistleblower. Oneida Saenz, a colleague of Ms. Garza’s at the local school, said she witnessed the plaintiff and juror exchanging money. She even noted that Ms. Garza stored the stash in her bosom. Merck seized on the loan arrangement and added to its laundry list of grounds for appeal.

Now that the Garzas are out of the settlement and down a verdict, their lawyers are weighing further legal options. A lawyer for the family said that the team was reviewing its options and had not yet decided whether to appeal the decision. Plaintiffs can either seek a rehearing before the appellate court or proceed directly to the Supreme Court of Texas.