December 22, 2006

A California state jury began deliberating Wednesday after a month and a half of Vioxx trial in the cases of Lawrence Appell and Rudolph Arrigale. The plaintiffs have had good luck here: not only did Judge Victoria Chaney consolidate wildly unrelated cases (a 2000 heart attack after 18 months of use and a 2002 heart attack after 4.5 months of use), maximizing the chance of jury confusion, but jurors are notoriously more likely to be charitable to plaintiffs in the week around Christmas. A verdict is likely today, because jurors will not want to have to worry about this case over Christmas.

“These cases are very different except for one thing: both of these plaintiffs were at increased risk for heart injuries regardless of whether they were taking VIOXX,” said Thomas Yoo of Reed Smith, a defense lawyer representing Merck. “Mr. Appell had significant risk factors prior to his heart attack, including hypertension, cholesterol problems, obesity, as well as a family history of heart attacks at relatively young ages.

“Mr. Arrigale suffered a cardiac arrest in March 2002 that was caused by advanced coronary heart disease. Mr. Arrigale had serious vascular disease for more than 25 years, a family history of heart problems, and suffered a heart attack caused by coronary artery disease in the early 1980s.”

Press coverage has not seen fit to examine why Appell, who is from Scottsdale, Arizona, is getting to try his case in a Los Angeles courtroom.