Merck & Co. has won another verdict as it defends itself from product liability lawsuits over its now-withdrawn painkiller, Vioxx.
In the latest case, a jury in New Jersey sided with the pharmaceutical giant, saying it was not responsible for the heart attack suffered by a woman who had been taking the popular arthritis drug.
The jury in Atlantic City delivered its verdict after two days of deliberations. The Wall Street Journal called it a crucial win for Merck, which still faces thousands of Vioxx-related lawsuits.
It was the third clear-cut Merck victory in six trials. One trial involving two plaintiffs ended in a split decision (see table below). The company has pledged to contest all the suits against it, which now total more than 11,500 nationwide.
In the New Jersey case, the jury concluded that Merck failed to provide adequate warnings to the 68-year old plaintiff about possible health risks from taking Vioxx. But the jurors said that, alone, was not enough to find against the company.
At issue was whether Vioxx caused the woman's heart attack, and the jury concluded that the evidence did not establish that it did.
Merck argued in court that the plaintiff suffered a heart attack for reasons unrelated to Vioxx, including obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure.
Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after clinical trials linked the drug to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke among people taking it.
Case | Verdict |
Ernst v. Merck (2005) | Plaintiff won |
Humeston v. Merck (2005) | Merck won |
Plunkett v. Merck (retrial - 2006) | Merck won |
Cona/McDarby v. Merck (2006) | Split decision: Plaintiff Cona lost failure to warn claim, but won consumer fraud claim. Plaintiff McDarby won. |
Garza v. Merck (2006) | Plaintiff won |
Doherty v. Merck (2006) | Merck won |
