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.

A child care center should not have been operated in an abandoned thermometer factory filled with hazardous waste, according to the plaintiff in Mignano v. Jim Sullivan. Almost one hundred children may have been exposed to highly toxic mercury vapors during the two years that the child care center operated.

According to the complaint, the Accutherm thermometer factory closed, and Accutherm declared bankruptcy, but MidAtlantic Bank chose not to foreclose on its mortgage because of the liability associated with owning a known toxic waste site. New Jersey had found Accutherm’s owner personally liable for cleanup costs and ordered a cleanup.

However, no site remediation occurred, nor were any warning signs posted at 162 Station Ave, Franklinville, NJ.

Jim Sullivan purchased the property from Accutherm and arranged to have it used as a child care center, operated by Kiddie Kollege Daycare & Preschool, Inc.

Among other things, the complaint seeks to fund long-term medical monitoring for mercury-related illnesses in the exposed children, as well as punitive damages.

CVN will webcast Mignano v. Jim Sullivan Inc. live.

UPDATE: CVN has been informed that the trial is continued to a date not yet determined.

Harrell v. South Kendall Construction, The nation’s first Chinese Drywall class action jury trial, begins Monday in Miami, Florida, and will be webcast live by CVN. Last June, a jury awarded $2.5M to a Florida couple in Seifart v. Banner Supply, the first Chinese Drywall case tried to a jury.

The Harrell trial will involve approximately 80 homeowners, many of whom were forced out of their homes by corrosive, hydrogen sulfide gas emitted by defective drywall imported from China. Repair estimates have run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for individual homes, and many Chinese Drywall homes have been foreclosed on.

Watch CVN’s live, gavel-to-gavel webcast of the Harrell Chinese Drywall trial, starting Monday September 27.

CVN’s webcast of Seifart v. Banner Supply, the nation’s first Chinese Drywall jury trial, began Tuesday in Miami.

Plaintiff attorney Ervin Gonzalez, of Colson, Hicks, Eidsen, described the damage caused by the defective Chinese drywall that Banner supplied to the Seifarts’ builder. According to Gonzalez, anything that was copper or silver, or other some other metals, would first get dark spots, and eventually start to fail.  Corroded wires would result in a fire hazard. Corroded refrigerators could cause the release of Freon, which was a health risk.

After playing animated depictions of corrosion, Gonzalez showed photos of damage to the Seifarts’ home. “Black. Should be copper-colored. Corroded. Brand new appliance. A cancer spreading through the house, and damaging, destroying their home.”

Gonzalez recited the scope of the damage: electrical wires, air conditioner, hot water heater, microwave. “Same story, over and over again. This is all throughout their home…Even the shower heads start getting damaged, even though they are brand new…Their dream home turned into a nightmare.”

The Seifarts paid $492K to complete the repairs. Gonzalez argued that Banner should have issued a recall, or complied with federal reporting requirements, or stopped selling the drywall, but instead, said Gonzalez, Banner took care of their own skin, and let the consumers take care of themselves.  ”They could have been a hero,” said Gonzalez, “Instead, they covered it up.”

Defense attorney Peter Spillis, of Weinberg Wheeler, told the jury that Banner had behaved responsibly. Banner was not trying to cut corners by selling cheaper drywall — in fact, Banner had paid a premium for the defective drywall. 

Further, said Spillis, Banner was not slow in recognizing the defect. Banner had had no prior experience with this kind of drywall defect, and there had been very few complaints compared to the very large quantity of drywall that Banner had sold. Further, Banner responsibly followed up to try to understand then problem, and then rang the alarm bell with its suppliers.

Spillis said that Banner admitted that the drywall was defective, and wanted the jury to compensate the Seifarts for the cost of fixing their home, and for other associated damages. But there was no cover-up.

Watch CVN’s webcast of the first Chinese Drywall Jury Trial (Seifart v. Knauf Gips and Banner).

In re: Tobacco Litigation, a product liability case that consolidates as many as 1,000 individual tobacco claims in West Virginia, will be webcast live by CVN. The individual cases were consolidated in 2000.

In September 2005, Circuit Judge Arthur Recht certified a question to the West Virginia Supreme Court, asking whether the tobacco trial could be bifurcated into two phases: some elements of liability and a punitive damages multiplier would be determined in the first phase; compensatory damages for each plaintiff, and punitive damages based on the multiplier, would be determined in the second phase. The Supreme Court answered affirmatively.

The plaintiffs allege that Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard could have made safer cigarettes and deceived the plaintiffs about the health risks. 

The trial was originally scheduled to begin at the start of 2010, but a mistrial was declared when the litigants were unable to find enough impartial jurors.

Phase 1 of the trial is scheduled to start next week.  A different jury will hear Phase 2.

CVN is webcasting the West Virginia consolidated tobacco cases live.