Here is an article that wraps up the first federal court Vioxx trial. The case will be re-tried in a few months.
Rule 35 Evaluations
One of the plaintiffs in this case (Kelly) was injured in a car wreck and had “soft tissue” injuries. The defense sought and was granted a Rule 35 examination by a doctor of its chosing. The doctor opined that the plaintiff “was magnifying her symptoms and neuropsychological testing/MMPI should be considered to assist in determining the level of symptom magnification.”
The defense asked for a neuropsych evaluation and the court granted it over plaintiff’s objection. Plaintiffs were permitted an interlocutory appeal.
Rule 35 examinations may be ordered for good cause shown when physical or mental condition has been put in controvery. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant “failed to affirmatively show that [the subject plaintiff] has put her mental condition in controversy and that [the defendant] has good cause for requesting her to undergo neuropsychological testing.”
Car Wrecks and Teenagers
My daughter is 14 and is very excited about getting her driver’s license. The idea terrifies me like it does most parents.
Here are some statistics about car wrecks and teenagers that will not do you much good at the office but may help you talk about safe driving with your teenager.
Vioxx Jury
The Vioxx jury in Houston resumes deliberatons today.
Vioxx Jury – Mistrial
The judge declared a mistrial in the Vioxx case this morning. The jury was unable to reach a verdict.
Federal Court Merck Jury Still Deliberating
The jury comes back Monday for a fourth day of deliberations in the first federal MDL Vioxx trial. The jury was given a dynamite or Allen charge on Saturday.
Read more here.
Federal Court Vioxx Jury is Deliberating Today (Saturday)
The Vioxx jury is working on Saturday. Read about it here.
For reaction of some lawyers to the latest news concerning the NEJM story, go here.
Tennessee Supreme Court Applies 3-Year Statute of Repose to Children
Yesterday afternoon the Tennessee Supreme Court said the the 3-year statute of repose found in the “Doctor and Hospital Relief Act of 1975” should be applied to claims made by minors.
Before yesterday, most lawyers assumed that minors had the right to wait until their 19th birthday to file suit. No more.
Our office filed an amicus brief for TTLA in support of the plaintiffs in this case. I argued the case for the plaintiffs.
Honda and Its Expert EXPOSED
Honda and its expert, Robert Gratzinger, got caught “wrongfully and intentionally alter[ing] the most significant physical evidence in [a products liability case.” The judge sanctioned them, but then sealed the order as part of a settlement of the case.
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice found to open the record to the public eye (read the motion here)and finally succeeded. Here is how it puts the describes the matter: “The court found that by intentionally destroying marks showing that Davis had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident – the ‘single most critical issue’ in the case – Honda had ‘attempted to rob’ the plaintiff ‘of her right to litigate on a level playing field.’ As a sanction, the court held Honda liable for Davis’s injuries and ruled the jury would only decide how much in damages Honda paid Davis.” Read the entire press release here.
Here is a copy of the now unsealed order.
Brief Writing – NOT
Read this opinion starting at Page 17 to get a court’s insight on how not to present an appeal.
An example: “Further, most of plaintiffs’ claims are patently disingenuous. Arguments regarding use of the Streamlined Rules, failure to find the arbitration was binding, the selection of the arbitrator and his subsequent disclosures or lack thereof, and the order compelling arbitration distort the law, the facts, and logic.”
Ouch.