MIAMI, FL – Last week a Miami-Dade County jury awarded $4.25 million to a smoker’s widow after determining cigarettes manufactured by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (NYSE: RAI) caused her husband’s throat cancer. According to a Courtroom View Network webcast of the verdict being delivered, the jury assigned 15 percent responsibility to Milton Williams, therefore reducing the verdict amount from $5 million.

Virginia Williams’ lawsuit on behalf of her late husband was once part of the “Engle” class action which resulted in a historic $145 billion verdict against the tobacco companies. After the Florida Supreme Court ruled each claim must be considered individually, juries have been slowly working through thousands of pending cases.

This most recent verdict came after nearly two weeks of trial proceedings. During closing arguments, plaintiff’s attorney David J. Finger of The Ferraro Law Firm asked jurors to award Virginia Williams millions of dollars in compensation for the loss of her husband, despite Milton Williams being partially responsible for over 40 years of smoking. “When they cremated that man with a hole in his throat…I submit to you that left a hole in her heart,” Finger told the jury. He also requested the same 15 percent responsibility assigned to Milton Williams, that the jury ultimately allocated.

Attorneys for R.J. Reynolds argued to jurors, that Milton Williams was responsible for his tobacco use. “He (Williams’ attorney) made it seem like everyone who grew up in the 40′s and 50′s turned into a smoker, and that’s simply not true,” said attorney Jack Williams of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice. “This case is not about all cigarette smokers, it is about one cigarette smoker.” Williams went on to list a number of likely factors R.J. Reynolds claimed were responsible for the plaintiff’s pharyngeal cancer besides smoking, including alcohol use, human papillomavirus, and poor dental hygiene. He also claimed the evidence showed Milton Williams never made a serious effort to quit smoking.

The jury’s decision to reject those arguments comes after another recent Engle case in Leon County resulted in a multimillion plaintiff’s verdict, while a Suwannee County jury also recently returned a verdict for R.J. Reynolds. All three trials were webcast gavel to gavel by Courtroom View Network, which has video recorded nearly every Engle trial to date. At least three more Engle trials are scheduled to begin in January alone, with dozens more ready to go to trial in the following weeks and months.

In the Miami trial, Virginia Williams was also represented by Allan Kaiser, and R.J. Reynolds was also represented by Dal Burton. The case is Virginia Williams, on behalf of Milton Williams v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, case number 2011-26313 before Judge Spencer Eig in the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida.

Plaintiff’s attorney David Finger delivers his closing argument.

ATLANTIC CITY, NJ – A state court jury has determined Roche Holding AG, manufacturer of the popular acne medication Accutane, must pay $18 million in damages to two former users who developed inflammatory bowel disease because of the drug.

The trial, which concluded last Friday after nearly two-months of testimony, involved the combined claims of four individual plaintiffs treated with Accutane who also developed inflammatory bowel disease, or IBD. The two prevailing plaintiffs, Kathleen Rossitto and Riley Wilkinson, received $9 million each, however the jury found in favor of Roche in the two other cases and awarded no damages, according to a Courtroom View Network video webcast of the verdicts being read in court.

In all four cases, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued Roche knew of the risks associated with Accutane but failed to properly warn doctors and patients. During closing arguments, David Buchanan of Seeger Weiss repeatedly told the jury Roche purposely ignored studies suggesting Accutane caused bowel problems. “Roche had internally concluded Accutane has been causally associated with inflammatory bowel disease,” he said. “They want to focus on what is outside of Roche’s walls and not inside their internal conclusions.”

Buchanan referenced expert witness testimony from Dr. David Sachar, a former adviser to the Food and Drug Administration, stating Roche had access to studies suggesting out of 100 patients with IBD who also take Accutane, 80% of those IBD cases were caused by the Accutane itself. “There’s a reason why Roche does not want to talk about the numbers from the study,” said Buchanan, who also noted Roche’s attorneys declined to cross-examine Dr. Sachar on those claims, instead relying on testimony from their own expert witness.

Representing Roche, Orlando Richmond of Butler Snow argued strongly to the jury against the connection alleged between Accutane and IBD, citing that similar bowel conditions have been known to the medical community since the 19th century. “The vast majority of these (IBD) cases are idiopathic, meaning the cause is unknown,” said Richmond. “It’s always been the case. It was the case during the 90′s, and it’s the case now.”

Richmond also referred to one of Roche’s expert witnesses, a pediatrician who testified individuals from the same young adult age range are the most likely to both take Accutane and to independently develop IBD, which would explain the apparent overlap in some cases without also suggesting Accutane caused the disease. The jury seemed to accept this argument for two of the four plaintiffs by determining Accutane did not cause their health problems.

Accutane was first manufactured in 1982, and Roche claims to have treated over 13 million acne patients since then. In 2009 Roche stopped manufacturing Accutane after patents on the drug expired, but the generic version known as isotretinoin is still widely produced and prescribed for acne treatment throughout the United States.

Nine of the 13 Accutane lawsuits to reach a jury to date resulted in verdicts against Roche, though a number have been reversed on appeal. The first case went to trial in New Jersey in 2007, and since then Judge Carol Higbee has had responsibility for thousands of similar Accutane lawsuits consolidated at the state court level in Atlantic City with federal claims consolidated in Florida before United States District Judge James Moody.

All of the New Jersey Accutane trials have been video recorded in full and archived by Courtroom View Network. New Jersey, along with many other states, allows for video coverage of civil trials, though news media cameras are generally not permitted in federal court.

The lead case caption is Kathleen Rossitto v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., ATL-l-7481-10-MT, New Jersey Superior Court, Atlantic County (Atlantic City).

David Buchanan explains to the jury what Roche knew internally about the risks associated with Accutane.

JACKSONVILLE, FL – This morning, R.J. Reynolds was granted a mistrial in Brown v. R.J. Reynolds, the second Engle Progeny tobacco trial that began at the Duval County Courthouse this month. Judge Adrian G. Soud originally heard Brown v. R.J. Reynolds, but recused himself after several weeks of the proceeding. Judge Charles Arnold, who previously presided over Frailey v. Philip Morris, stepped in and granted the mistrial.

Ray Fields Brown started smoking as a teenager and struggled with quitting for years. He finally quit in 1986, but there is evidence that he relapsed soon after. In 1993 Fields developed lung cancer and died two years later.

Robert Shields (Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC), attorney for plaintiff, put forth a theory of two side-by-side stories – Brown’s life and the Philip Morris story of “deceit and concealment of the facts.” He goes further and asserts that there was a choice involved in these two stories, and that choice was Philip Morris’ to engage in a campaign to keep people smoking.

Attorney for the defense, Kenneth Reilly took a very different approach during the trial. Reilly’s noticeably more casual style led to early laughs from the jury, during his opening statement, as he fumbled with some exhibits and labeled himself “low tech.” Reilly’s theory of the case was also different. He framed the case as one about control and responsibility. Specifically, who was in control of Brown’s actions and who has to take responsibility for it, the answer for each, he argued, being Brown.

Like other proceedings stemming from the Engle tobacco class action, if the jury found that Brown was a member of the class then all findings in that case would apply. Click here to read more about the Engle class action.

You can view the proceeding from openings to mistrial now, on Courtroom View Network.

Watch Robert Shield’s opening statement clip above.

Late last Friday, after nearly four weeks of trial proceedings, an Orlando jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in a civil trial alleging the antidepressant Zoloft caused Gary Torrence to commit suicide.

Our friends at Legal Newsline have more details on the case available here. This was the second time the case went before a jury after an earlier mistrial last year. Pfizer, the drug’s manufacturer, was no longer a party to the case when when trial proceedings began last month.

The full trial was video recorded and webcast gavel-to-gavel, which is available for viewing via Courtroom View Network.

MARIANNA, FL – The only “Engle” progeny tobacco trial scheduled for March began this week in Jackson County Circuit Court.

Emmon Smith, a minister who began smoking in the 1940′s, later developed lung cancer and sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (NYSE: RAI). Smith’s case is similar to thousands of individual suits filed against tobacco companies, after the Florida Supreme Court vacated the historic “Engle” class action verdict, and decided each plaintiff’s case against tobacco companies must be tried separately.

This is the second time Smith’s case has made it all the way to trial. In January of last year, a jury could could not be seated, and the trial was canceled. Jurors in Engle cases must commit to at least two to three weeks in the courtroom which sometimes makes seating a jury difficult.

With a jury successfully empaneled, opening statements finally took place this week. Representing Emmon Smith, attorney Richard Diaz told jurors R.J. Reynolds’ products were a major cause of his client’s addiction to nicotine, and the company concealed that danger to make huge amounts of money over decades. “Their choices were sales over safety…concealment over disclosure,” he said. “You will hear about conspiratorial conduct, and how it lasted for over 50 years.”

Diaz went on to describe how as an attorney for the plaintiff, he was responsible for the burden of proof associated with Emmon Smith’s claims. “I am happy, I am elated, to have that burden. I’m going to carry that burden, starting today, all the way to the very end of this trial,” he said. “By the time you hear the evidence in this case, your verdict will be for Reverend Smith.”

Representing R.J. Reynolds, attorney Stephanie Parker of Jones Day told the jury during her opening statement the trial is about Emmon Smith’s individual choices. “He chose to smoke, and he knew that smoking was dangerous,” said Parker. “He preached about the dangers of smoking in his own church for years.”

Parker described how other risk factors, like carcinogenic chemicals present when Smith worked as a farmhand, could have also contributed to his cancer. She made a point of detailing how Smith has been diagnosed with cancer on four separate occasions but is only suing for damages related to the first diagnosis. His current cancer, which is not part of the current suit, spread to the lung as opposed to originating there, and she said the evidence will show proper testing was never done on Smith’s initial cancer to verify it actually originated in his lung.

In contrast to the sweeping statements about the tobacco company’s conduct over decades made by the plaintiff’s attorney, Parker stressed the current trial only involved individual claims. “This case is not about smoking in general, it’s not about tobacco companies in general,” said Parker. “It’s only about Mr. Smith.”

The trial before Judge John Fishel is expected to last up to a month and is being webcast live by Courtroom View Network, which has covered nearly all Engle trials to date. The most recent Engle trial resulted in a $20 million verdict, plus millions more in punitive damages, against Lorillard Tobacco Company. R.J. Reynolds could also have to pay millions if the Jackson County jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff in this case.

The case is Emmon Smith v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, No 09-719 CA in Jackson County Circuit Court, Florida.

Attorney Richard Diaz delivers opening statements on behalf of Emmon Smith (Image via the CVN webcast of the trial)

ATLANTIC CITY, NJ – Opening statements took place Monday in a civil trial against drug manufacturer Merck & Company (NYSE: MRK) involving the widely-prescribed drug Fosamax.

The lawsuit in Atlantic County Superior Court claims the drug, which is used to treat the bone disease osteoporosis, caused serious injury to plaintiff Jo-Ann Sessner’s jaw, and that Merck failed to warn of Fosamax’s potential serious side effects.

Many patients who took Fosamax have filed lawsuits alleging the drug caused a condition called osteonecrosis of the jaw, where the actual jaw bone dies and can lead to the need for extensive surgery. Sessner’s case is the second to actually go to trial in state court and only the sixth Fosamax trial over all after four others in federal district court. One of those federal lawsuits resulted in the only plaintiff’s award to date.

Sessner’s attorney, Tim O’Brien of Levin Papantonio, told the jury during opening statements taking Fosamax ultimately hurt his client. “It did nothing for her,” he said to the court. “It only did things to her.” He went on to describe how osteonecrosis could only occur because of taking Fosamax, and that Merck intentionally withheld evidence of side effects to protect profits. “What Merck does is scare women,” he said while describing the company’s aggressive marketing of the drug to women with bone diseases like osteoporosis.

Representing Merck, attorney Christy Jones of Butler Snow told jurors Fosamax did its job and benefited Sessner. “It was a good thing Ms. Sessner was prescribed Fosamax,” said Jones. “It was a good thing because it prevented fractures, and some 10 years later Ms. Sessner has never had another fracture. Fosamax worked.” Sessner originally began taking Fosamax after suffering a hip fracture without any fall or injury due to low bone density.

Jones told jurors the evidence would show Sessner developed osteonecrosis in her jaw, after a tooth became infected and had to be removed. “This infection has nothing to do with Fosamax, but it’s that infection that ultimately led to the jaw problems and the injuries,” she said. Jones also pointed to other factors, like smoking, that put Sessner at risk for jaw problems.

Jones represented Merck at the first Fosamax trial last year in New Jersey, and the jury ultimately found Fosamax did not cause osteonecrosis in that case. With her trademark dark clothing and hypnotic southern accent, she also scored a victory for Johnson & Johnson in this same court last year at a trial involving the antibiotic Levaquin.

The current trial will run through at least mid-April, and based on prior cases Sessner’s attorneys will likely ask for millions of dollars in damages. The full trial will be webcast live via Courtroom View Network, which also webcast the first Fosamax trial in state court last year.

The case is Jo Ann Sessner v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp., ATL-L-3394-11.

MIAMI, FL – A jury has determined Lorillard Tobacco Company (NYSE: LO) must pay a deceased smoker’s widow $20 million and possibly millions more in punitive damages at an ongoing civil trial in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.

During tense moments before the reading of the verdict, attorneys clashed over the defense’s motion for a mistrial. Lorillard’s attorneys argued that due to the unavailability of the judge and the jury having to wait for his return after reaching a verdict, that jurors were allowed to continue deliberations and thus could not deliver their “original untainted verdict.”

While the jury deliberated, Judge Peter Lopez had left the courthouse for a colleague’s memorial service. According to a court transcript read back during the mistrial argument, after the jury informed the bailiff they had a verdict he said the judge had stepped away but would return shortly. Dorothy Alexander’s attorney argued against the motion for a mistrial, saying there was no evidence this delay impacted the jurors and the judge returned to the courthouse moments later. Judge Lopez denied the motion from the bench.

Had the motion been granted, this trial would have met the same fate as a growing number of other Engle tobacco cases which recently ended in mistrials. Four separate tobacco cases ended in mistrials last month for unrelated reasons. Each Engle tobacco trial takes roughly two to three weeks to complete, and Florida courts are struggling with how to process the thousands of these complex cases slowly working their way through the system.

The original Engle class action was a landmark case awarding billions to smoking victims and their families, but the Florida Supreme Court later ruled each case against the tobacco companies must be tried individually, with only a few dozen actually going to trial each year so far. A substantial number of Engle verdicts have been appealed, largely by the tobacco companies, and a recent appellate court’s reversal of an Engle plaintiff’s $2 million verdict suggests this trend will continue.

The jury returns to Judge Lopez’s courtroom next week to hear arguments in the trial’s punitive damages phase, which could force Lorillard to pay additional millions of dollars to Dorothy Alexander. These proceedings will be webcast live by Courtroom View Network, which has covered nearly all recent Engle tobacco trials to date.

Lorillard is represented by attorneys from Shook Hardy & Bacon and and Cheffy Passidomo. Dorothy Alexander is represented by Paige Trop & Ameen and The Alvarez Law firm. The case is The Estate of Coleman Alexander v. Lorillard Tobacco, case number 2007-046830-CA-01 in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.

ATLANTIC CITY, NJ – Opening statements are scheduled for March 1st in the second lawsuit to go to trial in state court involving the widely-prescribed drug Fosamax.

Plaintiffs Amelia Flores and Jo Ann Sessner filed lawsuits against the drug’s manufacturer, Merck & Company (NYSE: MRK), alleging they suffered jawbone injuries after taking Fosamax to treat osteoporosis, a disease that causes a loss of bone density.

Merck faces a number of lawsuits after patients taking Fosamax, also known as as a bisphosphonate or alendronate sodium, developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. This condition results in death of the actual jaw bone, which can cause serious dental problems and require surgery. In New Jersey, a number of individual cases were consolidated into a mass tort overseen by Judge Carol Higbee, which also includes Teva Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: TEVA) and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, who marketed generic versions of the drug.

Merck denies the allegations, and during earlier trials claimed other underlying health conditions caused patient’s jaw problems, and that the company provided adequate warnings about potential side effects to physicians and patients. Last year, in the first New Jersey state court trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Merck, determining Fosamax did not cause osteonecrosis.

Besides the cases in state court, a number of Fosamax cases were consolidated in federal court before U.S. District Judge John Keenan in New York City. So far five cases have gone to trial, resulting in three verdicts for Merck, one plaintiff’s verdict and one mistrial. In the sole plaintiff’s victory, jurors initially awarded a Florida woman $8 million dollars, but Judge Keenan later reduced that to $1.5 million.

The current trial is scheduled to last at least three to four weeks and will be webcast live, gavel to gavel, by Courtroom View Network. CVN also recorded the only other New Jersey Fosamax trial so far, Rosenberg v. Merck in March of last year.

The cases are Jo Ann Sessner v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp., ATL-L-3394-11 and Amelia Flores v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp., ATL-L-744-09 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County.

Watch In re Fosamax live on Courtroom View Network starting February 27th for jury selection or March 1st for opening statements.

Here at Courtroom View Network we spend all day watching video of real trials in real courtrooms across the country. For a quick break, here are our Top 10 favorite fictional (or re-enacted) courtroom scenes, some of them more realistic than others…

1. Ghostbusters II – 1989
Sadly cameras aren’t allowed at trials in New York state courts, so if Peter Venkman, et al., really were on trial we wouldn’t be able to watch, but that’s hardly the craziest thing that happens in this scene. Renowned character actor Harris Yulin steals the show as Judge Stephen “The Hammer” Wexler.

2. Inherit the Wind – 1999 (remake)
The original version of this Spencer Tracy classic often appears on similar lists, and rightly so, but the overlooked 1999 remake with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (who both passed away shortly afterwards) holds up on its own.  The Scopes Monkey Trial obviously holds a special place in our hearts here at CVN, being one of the first trials broadcast live over the radio.

3. Anatomy of a Murder – 1959
After seeing George C. Scott in a courtroom scene at the very end of his career, here he is 40 years earlier at the beginning, across from opposing counsel Jimmy Stewart. The original best-selling novel was written under a pseudonym by a justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, and starting a movie tradition of interesting cameos on the bench in courtroom scenes, the judge is played by actual attorney Joseph Welch, an active participant in the McCarthy Hearings.

4. The People vs. Larry Flynt – 1996
Yep, that’s the real Larry Flynt playing former Ohio state judge William J. Morrissey, who presided over Flynt’s criminal obscenity trial in the early 1980′s. And no, your eyes aren’t playing tricks on you, that’s actually Democratic strategist James Carville, still with some hair, playing the prosecutor.

5. My Cousin Vinny – 1992
Believe it or not, this is one of the most realistic courtroom movies out there in terms of criminal procedure. Strip away the comic performance, and the actual attorney arguments aren’t (that) different from what you’d find at a real trial. On the bench is of course Fred Gwynne, known for playing Herman Munster, as Judge Chamberlain Haller. 

6. Bananas – 1971
In this Woody Allen classic we find Fielding Melish, a nebbishy New Yorker who accidentally becomes president of a small fictional South American county, on trial for fraud. The scene features very memorable testimony from “J. Edgar Hoover” and in a preview of courts increasingly adopting alternative sentencing, all charges are dropped on the condition Melish doesn’t move into the judge’s neighborhood. 

7. Amistad – 1997
Sir Anthony Hopkins portrays John Quincy Adams arguing before the United States Supreme Court in the famous 1841 “freedom suit” of United States v. The Amistad Africans, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 518 (1841). Adams, who won the case for his clients, was at the time of the oral arguments both a former President of the United States and current member of the House of Representatives.

8. Monty Python – “Court Charades” – 1970
For anyone who’s ever sat through the lengthy reading of a complex, multi-count verdict, this comedy sketch set in London’s Central Criminal Court shows how it could always be much, much worse. 

9. A Few Good Men – 1992
You can’t make a list of awesome courtroom scenes without including this one, because if you don’t then everyone will ask, “What about the scene from ‘A Few Good Men’ with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson?” So here it is. 

10. To Kill A Mockingbird – 1962
Gregory Peck gives a seminal performance as Atticus Finch, arguably the most famous fictional lawyer in American history. This dramatic scene from closing arguments, with Finch begging the jury to do their duty, has likely been the inspiration for countless future attorneys to go to law school. 

In Dade County Courthouse’s first Engle progeny trial of the year, jurors heard opening statements in the Larkin v. RJ Reynolds trial in front of Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr.  By the end of the first day, a theme developed in the courtroom around the nature of choices, made both by individuals who smoke cigarettes, and the companies that manufacture them.

Born in 1944, Carole Larkin was a daily smoker by the age of nineteen, smoking on average one pack per day for thirty five years until she quit in 1988. Prior to her quitting, she developed pre-cancerous cells on her tongue which later led to Dysplasia and ultimately to floor-of-mouth cancer. She died in 2000. 

Plaintiffs contend that Larkin was a member of the Engle Class, that she was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine, and that the negligence of RJR was a legal cause of loss, injury, and damage.   However, according to Larkin’s attorney, Phillip M. Gerson of Gerson & Schwartz, “we don’t say that the smoker has no responsibility.  It’s not a hundred percent her fault.  It’s a shared responsibility”. 

At the close of his opening statement, Gerson asked jurors to consider “the choices that this ordinary housewife made over her lifetime compared to the choices that this large corporation that conspired with other companies to conceal the truth made just so they could make more money”.

“Any smoker can quit. Three thousand quit every day” claimed defense attorney Anthony Upshaw, of McDermott Will & Emery.  In addition, Upshaw contends Larkin was not a member of the Engle class since she quit in 1988, prior to the class’s 1990 beginning and that she was not addicted to nicotine.  In one of the more memorable lines regarding nicotine addiction, Upshaw declared “each time she decided to quit smoking she was successful”.  Larkin stopped smoking once for a year, resumed, then ultimately quit for good in 1988.

Picking up on the theme of personal responsibility and choice introduced by plaintiff’s counsel, Upshaw asked jurors: “Mrs. Larkin accepts some responsibility for her smoking, but only some, right?  Nobody but Carole Larkin could have made the choice, not ten percent, not twenty percent.  A hundred percent, only she could have made that choice”. 

Larkin v. RJ Reynolds, available live on Courtroom View Network, is set to run through the beginning of February.