class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

FORUM

« Which canon of statutory construction am I? | WSJ and loser-pays »

February 08, 2005


Post hoc ergo propter hoc

That's the philosophy of one plaintiff's lawyer handling Vioxx cases, reports the AP:

Lawrence E. Feldman, a Jenkintown attorney whose firm has been advertising on the Internet for people who took Vioxx, said most attorneys thinking about getting involved in the litigation are looking for any clients who had a heart attack or stroke within 72 hours of taking the drug, regardless of how much they took or for how long.

Feldman acknowledged that it may be tough for any client to show conclusively that their heart problem was caused by Vioxx, but he said patients, not the drug company, should get the benefit of the doubt.

"One man's pirate is another man's hero," Feldman said. "If you're talking about people who had a stroke or a heart attack within a few days of taking this drug, I don't think anyone has to look for any existential truth about whether they should be rewarded."

Posted by Walter Olson at 12:07 AM | TrackBack (1)



categories:
Products Liability
Scientific Evidence
Vioxx/Drug Litigation









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.