Vioxx...$80 million dollar settlement pacted! Health Insurance providers, Unions & private sector parties to benefit...

Merck's ominous little pink killer pill!

Good news on the Vioxx front!

A breakthrough, perhaps?

According to a spokesperson, third-party litigants in pending lawsuits against Merck (the makers of the wonder killer-drug Vioxx) have entered into a settlement agreement with the beleaguered manufacturer.

A posse of snarling claimants were seeking reimbursements for pay-outs issued on behalf of their clients for the pain-reliever (!) - Vioxx - that has since been determined by medical experts in the field to be hazardous to one's health.

Initially, Health Insurance carriers argued in their legal briefs that had they known that Vioxx caused potential cardiovascular risks, they would never have given the nod to approve the prescription-drug costs.

On a more sinister note, legal counsel for the plaintiffs accused Merck sales representatives (and head honchos in Whitehouse N.J.) of concealing the facts in a deceitful bold-faced effort to mitigate potential damages.

Merck (a U.S. based outfit) pulled the drug off pharmacy shelves in because of the risk of heart attacks and stroke. (2004)

In spite of the fact the pill-pusher confessed they goofed - and (as a consequence) established to the American people in the interim that they lied about product safety issues from the get-go - Merck attempted to vigorously stave off multi-pronged litigation that began to spring up like nasty weeds around the country.

Although Merck prevailed in a few suits - and upper-level management vowed to fight all causes- of-action in a myriad of court jurisdictions tooth-and-nail to the bitter end - the drug-maker finally relented.

In what amounted to a complex (landmark) settlement agreement for a U.S. drug-maker, Merck agreed to cash pay-outs to claimants (based on a point system) who suffered personal injury and financial loss as a direct result of ingesting the prescription drug which turned out to be injurious to their health and overall well-being.

In spite of a basic consensus that the much-ballyhooed "good faith" settlement agreement was a remarkable turning point for all concerned - there were cheers all around from Merck execs, defense counsel, and lawyers for the plaintiffs jockeying for a piece of the high-stakes action - thousands of claims (and pending aspects of the original litigation) have yet to be resolved.

At this site, for instance, I reported that disgruntled Vioxx victims have been lamenting in recent months that Merck's settlement agreement was nothing but a fraud perpetrated on the American people.

Post: 02/24/2009

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/02/vioxx-settlementa-fraud-perpetrated-on.html

Post: 04/15/2009

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/04/vioxxcalifornia-courts-assign-plaintiff.html

Yup!

Victims are crying foul!

For instance, claimants assert that the complicated - and for the most part - deceiving settlement plan based on a confusing point-system - was deceitfully concocted by devious lawyers and scurrilous company executives to ultimately keep the promised settlement cash out of their needy hands and at arm's length.

In fact, Merck manipulated the settlement scenario, to one end.

Why, to rehabilitate Merck's image with U.S. consumers, of course!

In view of the fiasco I've witnessed go down - coupled with the comments claimants have made in response to my informative posts on the Vioxx issues in recent months - clearly, it will be a cold day in he** before the victims get their due (settlement cash in hand) or in a U.S. Court of Law.

Get real, folks!

The "point system" devised to divvy out the settlement spoils just ain't working.

Notwithstanding, greedy lawyers on both sides of the litigation have already carved up most of the scrumptious pie for themselves.

No wonder Judge Chaney has a headache!

Justice for all?

Marcus Tullius Cicero once said:

"The foundation of Justice is good faith"

Until Justice is forthcoming in the Merck litigation, Vioxx victims go empty-handed.

Maybe Judge Victoria Chaney needs a Merck pill to perk her up! Jurist presides over litigation filed by Los Angeles Victims

http://www.julianayrs.com

Keanu Reeves...appears in court in role as defendant! Paparazzi altercation takes foray into celebrity realms...

Keanu Reeves appeared on the witness stand yesterday - starring in a scene - which was obviously coached by an attorney.

For the jury, the whole fiasco was a fascinating peek into the world of celebrity and the pitfalls of fame in the underbelly of Hollywood.

Reeves was there to offer up a defense to an allegation that he ran down and injured an overzealous member of the paparazzi arising from a stake-out incident which occurred last year on a dark street in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Allegedly, the photographer - Alison Silva - ambushed Reeves in an aggressive attempt to secure stills of the popular actor which he intended to sell for cash to the highest bidder.

After he was cornered in his vehicle, Reeves attempted to move forward in his Porsche, when the ballsy upstart stood in the way and was summarily hit by the slow-moving vehicle.

Mr. Silva is suing Reeves for allegedly causing a "career-ending" injury to his wrist as a result of the fender-bender.

Based on the testimony provided by Reeves in court yesterday, I am inclined to side with the popular star.

For example, when asked if Mr. Silva was disrespectful, he curtly replied.

"He wasn't rude per se."

I expect that most guilty parties - anxious to get out of the fix - would have taken the occasion to accuse the party of being pushy and belligerent - whatever - to justify their actions to the court.


Because Mr. Reeves didn't take this approach, I am inclined to believe his account of things.

In addition, the Matrix Trilogy hero testified, that he nudged his luxury roadster forward a bit, to signal he intended to go on his way.


Under the same set of circumstances, I expect that any number of people would have responded the same way.

Was Mr. Reeves supposed to just sit there and have his liberty restricted by an individual who was obviously intruding upon his "body" space?

If the hopped-up photog chose to remain in front of the vehicle as it moved forward, he did so at his own peril, in my estimation.

Silva testified that he ambushed Reeves with the intent of hopefully catching the sexy stud exiting with a girlfriend in tow.

At this juncture, he revealed to a fascinated jury, that Reeves was what the paparazzi referred to as a "shark".

A shark, he elaborated, is a term used to describe a big star who rarely ventures out.

"Photos of Reeves, therefore, bring a higher price."

The trial continues.

Cyber Law...Libel, Trademark Infringement, Electronic Contracts

Although most creative individuals would prefer to focus on their "art" than legal issues, it doesn't hurt to have a smidgen of knowledge when it comes to the Law.

During the summer semester, I took a course in Business Law which focused on a number of intriguing concepts: the key elements of a contract, what constitutes a binding, legal agreement between parties (in California), how to set aside a contract, etc.

And, aspects of Cyber law.

In view of the fact artists are often signing on the dotted line, doesn't it make sense for them to be smart and savvy and mindful of their legal rights and obligations, instead of just blindly signing away their lives?

The course zeroed in on torts (injury claims & money-damage award cases) and - in particular - causes of action for slander, libel, and Trademark infringement.

It makes a lot of sense to have some legal knowledge under your belt in view of the litigious society we inhabit today.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed, don't you think?

Libel is a timely subject, and probably more so today for people who cruise the Internet engaging in chat, and thoughtlessly posting on popular blog sites.

Here's a scenario: get into one snit with someone and it is wholly possible that a slew of insults will zip back and forth - as the world watches on!

Some Internet users are not even aware that their actions may be a cause of action for a court case!

Of course, libel concerns false statements made about a person in writing, which may be inflammatory in nature, and engaged in with the specific intent to maliciously harm or smear the reputation of a person.

Not to be confused with slander, of course!

Years ago, a fellow got into a nasty argument on the net about something.

Without thinking, he lashed out at the other party point-blank in a post, spewing a bunch of accusations which clearly had no merit.

In the heat of the moment, the person at the other end of the tirade responded in anger that he would sue for slander.

Well, the other guy just laughed.

Why?

A legal action for slander requires that the words be "uttered", not written on a page.

But, even with slander, problems can arise.

For instance, two business associates were arguing one day, and in the heat of the moment the one accused his partner of slandering him.

In this case there were no grounds for a lawsuit.

Why?

There was no one within earshot; it would not be possible to slander a person to himself!

Yes, it gets tricky, doesn't it?

People assume that because they are on the Internet they can make false statements - even engage in a little character assassination whenever they please - because they are under the mistaken impression that they cannot be traced or held responsible for their misdeeds.

Wrong!

Attorneys hire Private Detectives - experts in the field of Internet Data Analysis - to track the guilty parties down and serve them with a "summons" and a "complaint" to appear in Court.

Internet contracts are interesting, too.

Occasionally, you'll come across them, if you fill in an application for a credit card or a loan on the great world-wide-web.

Or, you may encounter a contract for service if you order a cell phone online.

As you are agreeing to the terms (more-often-than-not) you are required to click on the link - and after doing so - confirm that you agree (and understand) to the terms and conditions.

In fact, in some instances, you can not continue with the application process until you have actually scrolled down and viewed the documentation first.

Contracts signed on the Internet electronically are legally-binding in the courts today.

In my Law class, an interesting case was cited in respect to a Playboy Bunny who was sued by Playboy Enterprises for using "Playmate of Month" in a tag for her web site.

Playboy filed suit on the grounds that the sexy siren was allegedly using their Trademark in violation of applicable law, and subsequently petitioned the court for a restraining order for her to "cease and desist".

Surprisingly, the court found that because the "model" had - indeed - been a Playmate of the Month, that she was entitled to legally direct traffic to her website based on that - er - accomplishment.

Probably, the most hilarious case in recent years was the one that dealt with a Plaintiff's request for damages because someone had called them an **hole.

Believe it or not, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court!

In the highest court of the land, Justice Scalia was given the task of writing the "Opinion" of the Court.

In his dissertation, he dissected the word with precision, presumably with a straight face.

First, he analyzed the word a** (often used to refer to a donkey).

Then, he explored the second part of the derogatory term, "hole".

After discussing all the intricacies of the root meanings of the words and the in-and-outs of the specifics of the English Language - and God knows what else - Scalia court found that an individual may call someone an ***hole and not be sued for it.

Well, I guess some things are sacred!