Complain about a product or service

Merck Wins Latest Vioxx Suit

July 14, 2006

Related Stories • Pfizer Pays Record $2.3 Billion Settlement Over Illegal Marketing Charges • Court Snuffs Vioxx Suit • Pfizer Pays $894 Million to Settle NSAID Claims • Researchers Claim Vioxx Safety Study Was Actually Marketing Plan • 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Merck & Co. has won another verdict as it defends itself from product liability lawsuits over its now-withdrawn painkiller, Vioxx.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Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after clinical trials linked the drug to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke among people taking it.

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.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.