The Fosamax manufacturer had argued that the plaintiff suffered from various oral health problems, with drugs Rosenberg had been taking for those various health issues which led, in their view, to the plaintiff's jaw issues and not Fosamax. The defendant maintained throughout the three-week trial that Rosenberg's condition did not meet the medical definition for Fosamax osteonecrosis.The news report mused that the jury, which deliberated for seven hours over two days, appeared to have found the evidence insufficient to prove conclusively that the plaintiff's use of Fosamax over a seven-year period starting in 1999 caused the eventual death of a portion of her jawbone following a tooth extraction in March, 2005.
It has been alleged that Fosamax osteonecrosis of the jaw, or Fosamax ONJ, is often triggered by dental work.
For its deliberations, the jury had been asked to consider four questions. However, only the first question was dealt with (the other three questions were not identified.) Whether or not the remaining three questions would be deliberated and answered, would depend on the outcome of the first question. A negative verdict would, according to the Court, make the three remaining questions moot.
That's what happened in this Fosamax dead jaw case. The first question asked whether it was more likely than not that the plaintiff had osteonecrosis as she claimed. The jury answered "no."
End of story. Also end of lawsuit. It is not known if the plaintiff will appeal.
READ MORE FOSAMAX LEGAL NEWS
According to Tom Lamb writing in DrugInjuryWatch.com on February 8, the judge overseeing the Fosamax multi-district litigation (MDL) has requested two additional bellwether cases with regard to Fosamax jaw in federal court. The Honorable John F. Keenan of the Southern District of New York has asked for case selection by April 15. In the meantime, there are Fosamax trials pending that will be watched closely: Secrest v. Merck will go to trial in March, and Hester v. Merck in May. The Rosenberg case was litigated in state court.
READER COMMENTS
James Monro
on
(Evidence I saw did not show whether she was replacing the loss of natural steroids as required by say Addisons Disease, or was using them as a supplement as a body builder often does.)
In the previous cases a heavy toxic load from cigarettes was involved and again it is right that juries should attibute that slow poisoning of the bones (and the rest of the body) rather than Fosamax as being the primary cause of the plaintiff's problems.
Some of the recent evidence of beneficial aspects of Fosamax may suggest the mechanism for smokers is that the toxins absorbed by the bone may be trapped there.
Of course there may be a case for a further FDA warning that patients who acquire osteoporosis/osteopenia through smoking should not be prescibed the protection of bisphosphonates.