Merck Cleared In Second Vioxx Product Liability Case
This article was originally published in The Pink Sheet Daily
Executive Summary
Atlantic City, N.J. state court verdict clears Merck of allegations the drug maker failed to warn patients of risks associated with the use of Vioxx.
|
A jury verdict in favor of Merck was delivered Nov 3 in the second Vioxx product liability court case to reach trial. The outcome in Humeston v. Merck represents a victory for Merck after the company was found liable in the first case to reach trial. The Atlantic City, N.J. state court jury verdict cleared Merck of allegations the drug maker failed to properly warn patients of risks associated with the use of Vioxx (rofecoxib). "We presented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence," Merck said. The company said it acted responsibly by performing extensive clinical trials of Vioxx in nearly 10,000 patients prior to approval and by voluntarily withdrawing the COX-2 inhibitor from the market in September 2004 based on cardiovascular risk. The plaintiff in the case, Frederick Humeston, alleged he suffered a heart attack on Sept. 18, 2001 at the age of 56 as a result of intermittent use of Vioxx over a two-month period. He was hospitalized for two days. Merck argued that "Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking Vioxx or not." The short duration of time Vioxx was used by the plaintiff likely weighed in Merck's favor. The firm's decision to pull Vioxx from the market was based on cardiovascular risk signals that were not apparent until 18 months. The company presented a similar defense in the first case to reach trial in Angleton, Texas state court, but with a less favorable outcome. A jury decided on that case in August, finding that Merck was liable for the death of Robert Ernst. His widow was awarded $253.5 mil. in damages, of which it is expected Merck would have to pay about $26 mil. if the verdict is upheld in post-trial motions and on appeal (1 (Also see "Merck's Appeal In Vioxx Case Likely To Focus On Expert Testimony, Evidentiary Rulings" - Pink Sheet, 19 Aug, 2005.)). Following the outcome of the Texas trial, many legal experts suggested Merck would be best served to pursue a strategy of settling some outstanding cases when there is clear evidence that Vioxx contributed to adverse health effects and no apparent extenuating circumstances exist (2 (Also see "Merck May Consider Settling Some Vioxx Suits" - Pink Sheet, 26 Aug, 2005.)). Merck, however, has said it will vigorously defend each case and has no intention of entering into a global settlement. Thousands of cases have been filed against Merck; the first federal case to reach trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 28 in Houston, Texas. - Jessica Merrill |