OPINION
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Garza (Tex. 2011)(Opinion by Justice Hecht)
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
FULL TEXT OF OPINION [ coming soon ]
Opinions are available in pdf from the Court's website. Follow docket-number hotlink or the case-style hyperlink
OPINION EXCERPT
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW: Court of Appeals
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see: Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Garza,
No. 09-0073 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)(Opinion by Justice Nathan Hecht)
MERCK & CO., INC. v. FELICIA GARZA, ET AL.; from Starr County; 4th district (04-07-00234-CV, 277 SW3d 430, 12-10-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Willett and Justice Guzman not sitting)
Respondents contend that Vioxx, a prescription drug, caused their decedent’s death. In Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) we set requirements for determining
whether epidemiological evidence is scientifically reliable to prove causation. The parties here dispute what
those requirements are, whether they apply in this case, and whether they were satisfied. We hold
that Havner’s requirements apply and were not met, and that the evidence was therefore legally insufficient to
prove causation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment that
respondents take nothing.
While we have held that epidemiological evidence used to prove general causation must meet
Havner’s requirements for scientific reliability, we return briefly to the Garzas’ argument that the
totality of the evidence in this case shows general causation. They point to evidence that Merck
largely excluded patients with a history of cardiovascular disease from its studies. They argue that
the trials suffer from selection bias in that they excluded a subset of people who were at an elevated
risk of suffering a Vioxx-induced heart attack. But several of the studies did include patients who
had some history of cardiovascular disease, and in any event, the absence of evidence cannot
substitute for evidence. The Garzas argue that the risk doubling for Garza required by Havner can
be extrapolated from studies finding a doubling of the risk at much higher doses and longer
durations. But the Garzas cannot point to any scientific basis for such an extrapolation.
The totality of the evidence cannot prove general causation if it does not meet the standards
for scientific reliability established by Havner. A plaintiff cannot prove causation by presenting
different types of unreliable evidence. Thus, we are constrained to hold that the Garzas did not
present reliable evidence of general causation and are therefore not entitled to recover against Merck
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and judgment rendered that the
Garzas take nothing
Link to e-briefs: MERCK & CO., INC. v. GARZA