Merck Receives a Split Verdict
From New Jersey Jury in Vioxx Trial
By HEATHER WON TESORIERO
March 3, 2007; Page A4
A New Jersey state court jury delivered a split verdict in the first phase of the latest Vioxx trial, finding that Merck & Co. adequately warned doctors of the drug's heart-attack risks in the case of one plaintiff but not of another.
The eight-person jury found that in the case of both plaintiffs the drug maker violated a state consumer-protection statute by misrepresenting the drug's cardiovascular risks in marketing.
TRIAL SCORECARD
Merck has won eight and lost four cases over Vioxx. See a trial scorecard.The case of Frederick "Mike" Humeston, 61 years old, of Boise, Idaho, now will move into a second phase to determine whether or not Vioxx was a cause of his heart attack -- and what damages, if any, should be awarded.
Mr. Humeston's case was tried previously in 2005, and Merck prevailed. New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee later ordered a new trial after new evidence emerged.
The other plaintiff in this trial, Kathleen Messerschmidt, sued Merck over the fatal heart attack of her brother, Brian Hermans, who died on Sept. 15, 2002. The Vioxx label was changed to include further cardiovascular risk information in April 2002, making it harder to prove that Mr. Hermans was the victim of a failure on Merck's part to warn doctors. But the jury will now hear evidence to determine whether damages for consumer fraud should be awarded to Ms. Messerschmidt.
Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004 following a study that linked the drug to an increased risk of heart attacks and stroke. The company has been hit with some 28,000 lawsuits and has said it intends to fight each case. Since the first trial in the summer of 2005, the Whitehouse Station, N.J., company has won eight trials and lost four. |
