Merck on trial

As Merck goes on trial for Vioxx, we get a glimpse from the W$J of what sort of trial it’s going to be.  The plaintiff’s lawyer has a folksy manner and he’s going to boil down this case, which is supposed to be about a pain drug that caused heart attacks, to something the jury understands:

Mr. Lanier says he mainly plans to frame this case around Raymond Gilmartin, who recently stepped down as Merck's chief executive after 11 years. His opening statement to the jury will include a PowerPoint presentation with a big picture of Mr. Gilmartin, and this introduction: "This case is about Ray Gilmartin, who took a good drug company and turned it into an ATM machine for himself and for shareholders." When he showed that to focus groups, Mr. Lanier says, "they were stunned at how much money Gilmartin made and how much the company concentrated on profits."

It’s bad enough the corporate fraud trials are about resentment, but now guilt by resentment seems to be spreading to products liability cases.

Ironically enough, it was Gilmartin who withdrew the drug from the market when he might have done something less drastic.  I described this bid for “public admiration” (in Holman Jenkins’ words) as misguided social responsibility that “threw raw meat to the plaintiffs' lawyers who were already gearing up to prove that Vioxx was a dangerous drug.”

So is it better the jury focus on the evidence of causation? As an indication of the level of statistical sophistication we can expect from the plaintiff, Lanier questioned Gilmartin on a study showing that Vioxx users had six episodes of heart attacks or strokes and placebo users had one.  Gilmartin said at a deposition that the difference wasn’t statistically significant, which seems plausible if we’re talking about a large number of users. Here’s what happened next:

Mr. Lanier asked Mr. Gilmartin, "have you got $6 on you? I'm going to give you a dollar and you give me the six. It is not statistically significant in the difference. What do you think, are you in or out?" Mr. Gilmartin replied: "I'm not sure that I can come up with $6."

Hey, right, 6 is more than 1.  In fact, it’s 6 times more than one.  Ok, I’m convinced now.

Comments

[John Davidson]

took a good drug company and turned it into an ATM machine for himself

truly a greate line

cuts right to the core--motive. Thankfully we still have jurors who understand that there are too many people like Gilmartin who would sell their mother for a dime.

its really simple finance/competition theory. if you are making returns above the line, there really can only be 2 or 3 explanations--a lawful monopoly, an unlawful one, or fraud and deceit.

need proof. Bills Gates doesn't ring the cash register because Windows is a great product.

[Robert Schwartz]

Products liability has always been about resentment, and about nothing else. A Judge on the West Virginia Supreme Court wrote abook a few years ago in which he admitted as much.