Merck & Co., Inc. v. Garza
347 S.W.3d 256
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Garza decedent Leonel Garza suffered significant heart disease prior to death at 71; he was prescribed 25 mg Vioxx for pain for 25 days shortly before death.
- Death autopsy cited probable myocardial infarction with severe coronary artery disease as underlying cause.
- Garzas sued Merck for products liability asserting defective design/marketing and inadequate warnings of cardiovascular risk from Vioxx.
- Below, trial court entered judgment for Garzas; court of appeals affirmed some claims but reversed on causation and remanded for new trial due to juror misconduct.
- Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding Havner’s general-causation reliability requirements apply and were not met, so evidence is legally insufficient to prove causation.
- Court rendered judgment that Garzas take nothing; Merck not liable overall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Havner’s general-causation reliability standard applies and is met. | Garza argues Havner applies and supports causation. | Merck contends Havner’s standard requires reliable evidence of doubling risk, not met here. | Havner applies; the evidence did not show a statistically significant doubling of risk. |
| Whether clinical-trial data can satisfy Havner’s reliability threshold. | Clinical-trial data should count toward reliability. | Only meeting Havner’s doubling-risk standard qualifies; trials here did not. | Trials did not satisfy the threshold; not sufficient alone. |
| Whether totality of the evidence can establish general causation despite Havner gap. | Other reliable evidence could compensate for Havner deficits. | Total evidence cannot overcome Havner’s threshold. | Totality of evidence failed to prove general causation. |
| Whether specific studies (VIGOR, Shapiro meta-analysis, APPROVe, VICTOR) meet Havner requirements. | Some studies show increased risk; combined analyses support causation. | Dose/duration mismatches and non-significant results undermine reliability. | Overall, these studies do not meet Havner’s reliability standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (establishes reliability threshold for epidemiological evidence in causation)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (test for admissibility of expert testimony in causation)