Texas Judge Dismisses Vioxx Claims


Last week I wrote that a Texas judge anticipated dismissing 1,000 Vioxx claims. The dismissal was not on the merits, but based on an FDA regulation that asserts it can preempt state law, and grant immunity to companies whose drugs have been FDA approved. This is claimed despite the fact that Congress has passed no such law.

As per a report today (Harris Martin Publishing), the judge has now signed an order to that effect. My own check of the court’s website, however, does not show it to be online at this point.

This time of regulatory tort “reform” is a far more subtle and insidious way of protecting big business than those that advocate caps for those with catastrophic injuries.

Addendum: 4/22/07 — A copy of the decision is now available here.
You can find stories at Drug and Device Law (the most detailed coverage), WSJ Law Blog, and Point of Law.

Share

Related posts:

  1. Texas Judge to Toss Out 1,000 Vioxx Suits
  2. Vioxx Caused Heart Attacks in Just Two Weeks?
  3. Tort “Reform” Claims more Victims
  4. Waiver of Claims, Before Negligent Act, Is Not A Bar To Lawsuit
  5. New York Cleans Up Claims Act

Tags:

April 20, 2007 · Comments Off ·

Comments are closed.

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.