Fosamax MDL Jury: Drug Wasn't Defectively Designed, Didn't Cause Jaw Injury

Fosamax MDL Jury: Drug Wasn't Defectively Designed, Didn't Cause Jaw Injury

NEW YORK - A New York federal jury hearing the fourth Fosamax bellwether trial on Oct. 3 found that Merck's osteoporosis drug was not defectively designed and did not cause a plaintiff to develop osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) (In Re:  Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1789, No. 06-md-1789, Linda Secrest v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 06-6692, S.D. N.Y.).

 

The jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York answered "no" to the first question on the jury interrogatory:  "Do you find that Fosamax was a defective product - in other words, unreasonably dangerous due to defective design - before July 1, 2004, and that its defective design was a legal cause of Mrs. [Linda] Secrest's osteonecrosis of the jaw ('ONJ')?" 

In August, Judge John F. Keenan granted summary judgment to Merck on Secrest's other claims. 

Secrest, a Florida resident, was prescribed Fosamax in June 1998 and says she continued using the osteoporosis drug until April 2005.  She claims that she was diagnosed with ONJ, a condition in which the jaw bone fails to regenerate, particularly after oral surgery. 

Whether Secrest took Fosamax continually during the seven-year period, when she was diagnosed with ONJ and whether she had ONJ were in dispute. 

In a press release, Merck counsel Chilton Varner of King & Spalding in Atlanta said Secrest's medical problems caused her to develop jaw and dental problems.  Varner said Secrest had a long history of invasive dental procedures and suffers from medical conditions that "inhibit the body's ability to heal."  

Secrest's counsel, Timothy M. O'Brien of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner & Proctor in Pensacola, Fla., told Mealey Publications "[W]e will appeal on at least two issues:  one is the Court's pretrial ruling dismissing the failure to warn claim (leaving only the defective design claim) and two is the Court instructing the jury that a product is presumed non-defective if the FDA approved it.  That one-two combination didn't leave the jury much choice in the matter." 

Testimony began Sept. 8 and continued over 10 days.  The jury went out on Sept. 27 and deliberated three days before returning its verdict Oct. 3. 

[Editor's Note:  Full coverage will be in the Oct. 6 issue of Mealey's Emerging Drugs & Devices.  In the meantime, the blank verdict opinion is available at www.mealeysonline.com or by calling the Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844.  Document #28-111006-024V.   For all of your legal news needs, please visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys.] 

Download the document now:

Lexis.com - Document #28-111006-024V

Mealeysonline.com - Document #28-111006-024V

For more information, call editor Tom Moylan at 215-988-7739, or email him at tom.moylan@lexisnexis.com.

Lexis.com subscribers may search all Mealey Publications

Non-subscribers may search for Mealey Publications stories and documents at www.mealeysonline.com or visit www.Mealeys.com.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

Comments

Allison Walken
  • 10-08-2011

Great post.