[UPDATED THROUGH APRIL 1, 2010]

Causation, Preemption, Safer Alternative Design, Jury Misconduct.
Was claimant required to introduce into evidence at least two statistically significant scientific studies showing that Vioxx more than doubled the risk of heart attack, or is evidence from a clinical trial sufficient? Did claimant’s expert sufficiently account for alternate causes of account for potential alternate causes of heart attack to support a finding of specific causation? Was the evidence sufficient to show that a “proper” warning of the risk of Vioxx would have changed the physician’s decision to prescribe it? Does the Food and Drug Act preempt claims that Vioxx was defectively marketed? Did plaintiff present sufficient proof of a safer alternative design by introducing evidence of a patent application into evidence? Did jury misconduct require a new trial where one of the jurors failed to reveal that he had accepted several interest-free loans from one of the parties? Merck & Co. v. Garza, No. 09 0073, formerly 277 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008), review granted 10/23/09.

Seller’s Indemnity.
Were component parts of exterior insulation and finish system a “product” within the meaning of the Products Liability Act? Was an independent contractor a “seller” for purposes of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.002? Was a contractor entitled to receive indemnity when its liability to the homeowner arose solely out of contract? Fresh Coat Inc. v. K 2 Inc., No. 08 0592, formerly 253 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008), review granted 09/25/08.