CONSUMER NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS  


Complain about a product or service

Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish
Automotive    Education    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Shopping    Travel   
NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

Merck Wins Latest Vioxx Suit





July 14, 2006

Related Stories

First Vioxx Judgment Overturned On Appeal
Merck Agrees to Pay $58 Million to Settle Vioxx Claims
Researchers Claim Merck Cooked Vioxx Data
Common Pain Relievers May Boost Muscle Mass
More Painkillers Can Cause More Pain
Merck Caves, Agrees To $4.85 Billion Vioxx Settlement
New York Sues Vioxx Maker over Drug’s Risks
Merck Wins Vioxx Case In Illinois
Judge Rules Out Vioxx "Super" Class Action
FDA Critic Blasts Merck's Vioxx Replacement
Merck Loses New Orleans Vioxx Case
Merck Wins Latest Vioxx Suit
Vioxx Study Authors Backtrack On Claim
Older Painkillers May Increase Heart Attack Risk
More about Vioxx
---
Other NSAIDs
Bextra
Celebrex
Dangers of Other Vioxx-Type Drugs
Vioxx Alternatives
Aleve Ingredient Seen as Health Risk

Merck & Co. has won another verdict as it defends itself from product liability lawsuits over its now-withdrawn painkiller, Vioxx.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



Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.


Consumer News

July 9 2008

Recent Recalls & Safety Alerts

Print, mail, etc.




FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!


Knowledge is free.
Knowledge is power.



Back to the top |

Advertisement


Home | Rogues Gallery | Good Guys | Complaint Form | News | Recalls | Search | Video | FAQ |
Consumer Resources | Small Claims Guide | Lemon Law | Newsletter | Contact Us
Advertise With Us | Testimonials | Newsroom | RSS Feeds | Radio | Job Postings




Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.