Merck's legal tactics invite judge's anger

Merck's desperation was clearly visible at the second day of Humeston vs. Merck trial. A lot is at stake. The company lost its first case in Angleton, Texas and most analysts believe that it is unlikely that Merck will win this case either. However, since the company has not changed its fundamental legal strategy, it is resorting to "dirty" tactics often favored by conservative think tanks and business organnizations - blame the tort lawyers for all the ills of America.

Things got so ugly at one point that Judge Carol Higbee threatened to declare a mistrial today. Despite earlier agreement among the lawyers and the judge, the attorney for Merck, Diane Sullivan, attacked trial lawyers and charged that Frederick "Mike" Humeston was surrounded by lawyers. "That's not science, that's lawyering, lawyering, lawyering," she shouted as horrified judge and others in the courtroom cringed in their seats.

Humeston took Vioxx for injuries sustained during the war in Vietnam and within a matter of two months suffered a heart attack. The dispute is over the role of Vioxx. Merck lost almost of all its motions in pre-trial hearings and is under tremendous pressure to win this case. While it has backed off from its earlier offer to settle some cases, it may have to agree for some kind of global settlement if it loses the New Jersey case. Vioxx litigation is estimated to cost the company anywhere between $50 to 65 billions.

Recommended article: Should you settle or go to trial?