Yesterday the 14th Court of Appeals overturned a 26 million Angleton jury finding that a 59 year old triathlete died because of his use of the popular painkiller Vioxx. The Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove the drug caused his heart problem and death.
How could the court make such a finding? Especially since there was over a month of testimony in this case? Over a month, and it wasn't enough?? Now, of course, I wasn't there and I do not know what the testimony was all about, but I do know the trial attorney was Mark Lanier, and he's pretty damn good. Spectatcular even, and I find it hard to believe the reason for the reversal had to do with the testimony.
So, what could it be? Well, according to Mark Lanier, it has something to do with politics. The Houston Chronicle states "Lanier said the Texas decision was handed down by judges who regularly accept campaign contributions from law firms representing corporations that appear in their courts."
What do I think? Well, I think he's onto something. What do you think?