Poor Merck must have been grateful for Columbus Day. It gave them an extra day to compose themselves after Black Friday, when Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee struck the trial testimony of company vice president and medical doctor Briggs Morrison, finding that he "materially changed" what he had been expected to say based upon his deposition.
Uh oh, Briggs! Was this your bright idea?
Without a hint of irony Merck spokesman Theodore Mayer of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in New York said Friday afternoon that defense lawyers would ask Higbee to reconsider her decision. "This testimony goes right to the heart of the plaintiff's theory of the case," he said.
Right to the heart, indeed!
On the other hand the plaintiffs' last witnesses were "shifty": retired Merck research scientist Alan Nies, current marketing executives Charlotte McKines, who directed the marketing launch of Vioxx, and Jan Weiner, who oversaw Vioxx-related public relations campaigns.
They not only testified that Merck heavily promoted Vioxx at a time when the drug maker knew Vioxx was linked to heart-related risks, but they displayed body language that raised credibility issues: shifty eyes, hesitant responses and verbal stumbles.
McKines sent out marketing materials to 70,000 doctors saying Vioxx was OK for the heart at the same time statistically significant data emerged showing Vioxx caused heart attacks. She was asked: "As the person shaping Merck's message on Vioxx, don't you think you should have known that Vioxx caused heart attacks?"
Tough one to answer, Charlotte?
Insiders observation: It's interesting to see the Marketing department in the crosshairs. Usually court cases are an "expert witness" -fest and marketing get a pass. In this case both Marketing and PR were represented in court and found wanting.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1128947761283
No comments:
Post a Comment