Vioxx Cleared in Heartattack Case

  1. Vioxx Cleared in Heartattack Case

    Major victory for Merck in N.J. Vioxx trial
    Jury finds drug maker not responsible for patient's heart attack

    Updated: 1:13 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2005
    ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. - Merck & Co. won a major victory in the battle over its Vioxx painkiller Thursday when a New Jersey state jury found that the drug maker properly warned consumers about the risks of the medication. The finding means Merck won’t be held liable for the 2001 heart attack suffered by a man taking Vioxx.

    After deliberating for less than eight hours over three days, the jury cleared Merck of allegations it failed to warn consumers about the drug’s risks and engaged in “unconscionable commercial practices” in marketing it to doctors and their patients.

    The verdict was Merck’s first win out of two Vioxx-related trials. In August, a Texas jury found the company liable in a Vioxx user’s death. Damages there will be cut to about one-tenth of the jury’s $253 million award due to that state’s caps on punitive damages.

    Much of the seven-week trial, eagerly watched by lawyers and plaintiffs from around the country, relied on the testimony of medical experts. Witnesses for Merck testified the company believed Vioxx was safe for the heart before the drug was pulled from the market a year ago after a study showed it doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes when taken for at least 18 months.

    The company faces more than 6,500 similar lawsuits, which Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., said it plans to fight one by one. Thursday’s verdict means it might take several more cases before lawyers can find any sort of precedent that might determine Merck’s ultimate Vioxx liability. In the meantime, each case — including a federal trial scheduled to begin in Houston Nov. 28 — will continue to draw the attention of pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers and stock analysts.

    Members of Merck’s legal team, some with tears in their eyes, hugged each other after the New Jersey verdict.

    “I feel pretty good,” said lead counsel Diane Sullivan. “I’m proud of the folks at Merck.”

    The verdict capped a trial centering on Frederick “Mike” Humeston, 60, of Boise, Idaho, who was stricken two months after he began taking the drug to ease pain from a Vietnam war knee injury.

    Humeston’s lawyer, Chris Seeger, said he was “absolutely surprised” by the verdict.

    “I have to kind of sit and reassess what went wrong here. My desire to try more cases is way up right now,” Seeger said. “Merck is based in New Jersey. Maybe that factored into this jury pool.”

    Mistrial refused
    Merck’s lawyers had appeared to be fighting a losing battle, repeatedly clashing with Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee, who denied key motion requests by them and threw out the testimony of Merck’s first witness on procedural grounds.

    On five different occasions, Merck asked her to declare a mistrial. Each time, she refused.

    In the end, that turned out to be a blessing — and a much-needed one — for Merck, which pulled Vioxx off the market last year after a study showed it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months’ use.

    The six-woman, three-man jury concluded that Merck adequately disclosed information about the drug’s risks and could not be held accountable for Humeston’s heart attack. The jurors voted 8-1 that Merck properly warned doctors about risks with Vioxx and voted unanimously on three counts that Merck did not mislead doctors about the drug’s safety.

    Humeston’s lawyers painted a picture of the two-time Purple Heart winner as a victim of a greedy drug company that put profits before patients, rushing Vioxx to market in an unsuccessful bid to beat rival Celebrex onto drugstore shelves.

    About 20 million Americans took Vioxx after it hit the market in 1999, embracing it for its effectiveness in relieving pain while sparing them the upset stomachs, ulcers and other gastric problems associated with some other analgesics.

    At its peak, Vioxx was a $2.5 billion-a-year blockbuster.

    No risk from short-term use?
    It worked for Humeston, alleviating pain in his left knee, which sustained shrapnel injuries during his U.S. Marine Corps service in Vietnam. But on Sept. 18, 2001, Humeston took two Vioxx pills after work and within hours suffered a mild heart attack.

    His doctors blamed it on Vioxx, saying Humeston — a hiker and former mountain guide — had clear arteries and no history of heart disease. He wouldn’t have taken it had he known about the heart attack risk, lawyer Chris Seeger told jurors.

    Merck repeatedly reminded jurors that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved it as safe and effective on four occasions for use against different types of pain, the last a month before Merck recalled it.

    The company’s lawyers cited Humeston’s elevated blood pressure, weight and stress from an ongoing dispute he was having with his U.S. Postal Service bosses, saying they were to blame for his heart attack, not Vioxx.

    The night before the heart attack, Humeston was called by his personal physician in response to an office visit by Postal Service fraud investigators in which they showed him a secretly-recorded videotape of Humeston working on a car at his home.

    Merck’s expert cardiologist testified that that call was the “absolute trigger” for the heart attack.

    While Humeston made for a sympathetic plaintiff, he also was a relatively healthy one, appearing in court for nearly every day of testimony and taking the stand for one day.

    In the Texas case, the victim was a Wal-Mart produce manager who died after taking Vioxx; his widow was the plaintiff.

    Merck’s lawyers also told jurors there was no scientific link between short-term Vioxx use and heart attacks.

  2. I wonder how much of the 2.5 billion a year is allocated for kick-backs and bribes... er... I mean 'lobbying' of course.

  3. I see this as a good thing bacause the jury is showing that people need to take responsibility for their themselves. but it could be all about money like shoot said.

  4. [QUOTE]but it could be all about money like shoot said.[\QUOTE]

    It probably is all about money, but you're right people do need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. If a doctor told me to take a drug Id be researching the hell out of it before I put it into my system.

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Alleged 'clear' supplier indicted in BALCO case
    By yankees3 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-05-2005, 02:17 AM
  2. Emu Oil Helps Tendonitis (at least in my case)
    By Blacksmith in forum Supplements
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-21-2003, 08:45 PM
Log in
Log in