{"id":267310,"date":"2010-02-02T16:20:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-02T21:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d8341c89dd53ef0128772b319f970c"},"modified":"2010-02-03T08:30:25","modified_gmt":"2010-02-03T13:30:25","slug":"february-2010-fosamax-federal-court-mdl-litigation-update-next-trial-starts-in-mid-april","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/267310","title":{"rendered":"February 2010: Fosamax Federal Court MDL Litigation Update; Next Trial Starts In Mid-April"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Merck Lost Its Attempt To Have Louise Maley’s Fosamax Lawsuit Dismissed Before Her April 19, 2010 Trial Date<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

(Posted by Tom Lamb at <\/strong>DrugInjuryWatch.com<\/strong><\/font><\/span><\/a>)<\/strong><\/font><\/p>\n

We have been reporting about the three bellwether trial cases for the federal court Fosamax MDL<\/a> and, in this article, we continue to do so.<\/p>\n

To start, Louise H. Maley v. Merck & Co. Inc. <\/em>is the next Fosamax case set\u00a0for trial in the federal court MDL, and this trial will start as scheduled on April 19, 2010.<\/p>\n

Recent efforts by Defendant Merck to avoid this Maley <\/em>Fosamax trial\u00a0were summarized in a January 28, 2010 news article, “Merck Loses Dismissal Bid in Third Fosamax Case”<\/a>, by Bloomberg <\/em>reporter Thom Weidlich:<\/p>\n

\n

Merck & Co. lost its bid to dismiss the third case scheduled for trial over claims its osteoporosis drug Fosamax caused so-called jaw death. <\/p>\n

The claim of the plaintiff, Louise Maley, \u201cdoes not fail as a matter of law from a lack of evidence of exposed necrotic bone,\u201d U.S. District Judge John Keenan in Manhattan wrote in a ruling entered into the case docket today. \u201cSpecific causation remains a material issue of fact for the jury.\u201d <\/p>\n

A trial is scheduled for April 19. Maley, of Muncie, Indiana, said she developed osteonecrosis of the jaw, or ONJ, by taking Fosamax, according to her complaint filed in May 2006….<\/p>\n

Keenan declined to grant Merck\u2019s request for a so-called summary judgment on Maley\u2019s claim that the drugmaker failed to warn about Fosamax\u2019s dangers.\u00a0[Maley] didn\u2019t contest Merck\u2019s dismissal request on her strict-liability and warranty claims, and the judge tossed those. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This January 28 Bloomberg <\/em>article also provides an overview of the Fosamax litigation in terms of the number of Fosamax lawsuits filed and the money Merck has reserved for the defense of those Fosamax cases:<\/p>\n

\n

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, as of Sept. 30 faced about 953 Fosamax cases, including suits with multiple patients, the company said in a Nov. 2 regulatory filing. About 700 lawsuits have been consolidated before Keenan for evidence gathering….<\/p>\n

As of Sept. 30, Merck set aside $48 million for defending the litigation, according to the regulatory filing. It hasn\u2019t earmarked any money for damages.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In closing, the next scheduled Fosamax trial is Maley v. Merck & Co<\/em>., 06-cv-4110, which is one of the hundreds of pending Fosamax lawsuits in In Re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation<\/em>, MDL 1789, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).<\/p>\n

______________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

DrugInjuryLaw.com<\/font><\/span><\/strong><\/a>: Legal Information And News About Prescription Drug Side Effects<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n