Legal Radar

Merck Wins Second Vioxx Victory

A federal court jury in New Orleans rejected a claim that pain killer Vioxx caused the 2003 heart attack of Robert Garry Smith who took the drug for approximately four months before his heart attack. Merck has now won two out of three federal Vioxx cases to go to trial.

Merck had argued that Smith, belonging to Kentucky, had multiple risk factors for a heart attack including elevated blood pressure, a family history of cardiac problems, coronary artery disease and he was considered medically obese. Additionally, he shoveled snow, in cold temperatures, for almost an hour on the day of his attack.

Vioxx has already landed the company in over 14,000 court cases. Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market after a clinical study showed that 18 months of taking the drug increased the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Read

$ 51 Million Award Against Merck in Vioxx Case Overturned

A federal judge overturned $51 million in compensatory and punitive damages that had been awarded to Gerald Barnett, who suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx, deeming the amount "excessive."

Judge Eldon Fallon of the U.S. District Court in New Orleans also ordered a new trial.

Earlier this month, a New Orleans jury ruled that Merck had been negligent for failing to adequately warn doctors about risks associated with the drug. The jury also found that Merck "knowingly misrepresented or failed to disclose" information about Vioxx to doctors treating the 62-year-old Barnett. Barnett was awarded $50 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

Barnett took Vioxx for 33 months before suffering a heart attack in September 2002, and for two years afterward.

Merck said in a statement that it will file a motion requesting the new trial also include all liability issues.

Read

Vioxx Not the Cause of Woman's Heart Attack

An Atlantic County jury has ruled that Vioxx was not a substantial cause of the heart attack suffered by Elaine Doherty, 68.

The jury found that Doherty's heart attack was caused by her own medical problems, which included arthritis, heart disease, blocked arteries, high blood pressure,  obesity and diabetes. Vioxx was not a substantial factor in Doherty's 2004 heart attack, and Merck will not have to pay compensatory or punitive damages. The jury also found that Merck did not violate New Jersey's consumer fraud law, meaning it used good faith in its marketing and did not conceal Vioxx risks.

Lawyers for Doherty had argued that Vioxx was a major cause of her heart attack and that Merck downplayed the risks of Vioxx both to doctors and to patients. Doherty, the first female Vioxx user whose case has come to trial, had taken Vioxx for 2 1/2 years for arthritis before suffering a mild heart attack in January 2004.

Merck lawyers countered that company officials disclosed the drug's risks appropriately and that Doherty's own cardiac risk factors were responsible for her heart attack.

The jury found that Merck properly warned doctors about the drug's cardiac risks, but did not warn the woman, the first time a jury in a Vioxx liability case has considered whether patients were warned.

Read

Vioxx Risks Associated With Short Term Use

A 107 page report that was submitted by Merck & Co. to the Food and Drug Administration shows that shows that patients were at a higher risk of heart problems and strokes soon after they started taking Vioxx. A previous study had shown that the drug doubled the chances of heart attacks and strokes after usage of at least 18 months.

Merck Study: No Added Risk After Stopping Vioxx Usage

Merck & Company has released study data that shows that Vioxx users were not at increased risk of heart attack or stroke in the year after stopping the drug. Merck said data from an additional year of  follow-up, did not show a statistically significant difference in the rate of heart attacks and strokes among patients who had been on Vioxx and those who had taken a placebo.

However, there was a higher rate of complications, mainly strokes, among those taking Vioxx over all four years covered in the new data: the original three years of the study and the follow-up year after patients were taken off the medicine.

Merck faces about 10,000 lawsuits over Vioxx, and has lost half of the six cases to come to trial so far.

Read

Merck’s Strategy to Limit Liabilities in Vioxx Cases

Having lost three of the six cases tried so far after the withdrawal of its pain killer, Vioxx, Merck appears intent to fight all the 11,500 lawsuits it faces. In spite of the huge potential liability, the company seems to be unwilling for a global settlement just yet. Merck’s strategy has been to assert that the company acted responsibly by pulling Vioxx in 2004. Whether they will participate in settlement talks after September 2006, two years after Vioxx’s removal, and when the limitation for filing lawsuits expires, remains to be seen.

Read