Dyspozycyjny z Lublina Otto Frenkenstein pewnie przewroci sie. Ze sprawy
o lek Vioxx usunieto sedziego poniewaz bral wczesniej ten lek.

Oczywiscie kto by sie takimi drobnostkami przejmowal w politycznie
poprawnych sadach lubelskich.


> Calif. Judge Who Used Vioxx Removed From Vioxx Case
> By RONALD V. BAKER, Andrews Publications Staff Writer
>
> A California judge assigned to coordinate some 380 suits against drug maker Merck &
Co. over the recalled painkiller Vioxx has been relieved of his duties because of his
prior use of the medication.
>
> A state appeals court said although there is no evidence of impropriety on the part
of Judge Peter D. Lichtman, permitting him to continue as coordinator for the cases
could lead a "reasonable person" to a "realistic doubt" concerning his ability to
remain impartial.
>
> According to the record, a state judicial council selected Judge Lichtman as
coordinating judge in September 2002, charging him with the oversight of a wide
range of injury claims from plaintiffs who say they were harmed by their use of
Vioxx (rofecoxib). Although the judge held seven hearings or conferences between May
2003 and December 2004, he made no mention of his Vioxx use on the record.
>
> The first indication that the judge used Vioxx came during an off-the-record
discussion with four attorneys representing Merck Oct. 4, 2004, just four days after
Vioxx was pulled from the market, court records say. During the talk, the judge said
he thought Vioxx was a "very effective medication," but that after the recall, he
had "cleaned out" his medicine chest.
>
> Vioxx, which registered global sales of $2.5 billion in 2004, was withdrawn in the
face of mounting evidence linking it to strokes and heart attacks among its users.
>
> In a private Dec. 16 conference with the judge, called at the request of Merck's
counsel, Judge Lichtman admitted using Vioxx but said he was certain he had
mentioned it on the record during one of the first hearings he held in the case in
February 2003.
>
> During a conference call the next day, court filings say, the judge conceded that a
review of case transcripts and a previously issued order showed no evidence of such a
revelation, and he admitted he "may have forgotten to make his intended disclosure."
>
> He said, however, that he did not believe his use of the Merck drug warranted his
recusal and that he would not step down from the case voluntarily. He said the
attorneys involved should submit a formal motion for disqualification if they felt
it necessary.
>
> On Jan. 14 Judge Lichtman struck a statement of disqualification that Merck had
filed four days earlier. He said the statement contained no valid grounds for his
disqualification and the request was "based on a disclosure that occurred
approximately two years ago."
>
> After Merck appealed to the California 2d District Court of Appeal, the panel
concluded Judge Lichtman's removal from the case is warranted because, while he has
stated he has no plans to participate in Vioxx litigation, such winds could easily
shift.
>
> "Under these circumstances, Judge Lichtman cannot state whether he may incur some
future health consequences from his ingestion of Vioxx," the appeals court
explained. "It is possible issues to be resolved in this litigation may have a
direct, substantial and personal impact on Judge Lichtman."
>
> The appeals court said that, contrary to the judge's claim that he had revealed his
Vioxx use on the record two years earlier, "there is no record of such a disclosure
and no attorney appearing in the case has stated that he or she actually recalls
such disclosure."
>
> Merck & Co. Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B180613, 2005 WL
880112 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 15, 2005).
> Drug Recall Litigation Reporter
> Volume 08, Issue 12
> 05/09/2005

do góry