• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Cardiologist Says Merck Accuser Was at Risk for Heart Attack Before Vioxx Use

Posted on: Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 18:00 CDT

By Josh Goldstein, The Philadelphia Inquirer

Oct. 19--ATLANTIC CITY -- A cardiologist testified that Frederick "Mike" Humeston was at risk for the heart attack the 60-year-old postal worker claims was caused by Merck & Co. Inc.'s Vioxx pain reliever.

Theodore Tyberg, an associate professor of cardiology at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell, told a New Jersey Superior Court jury that Humeston's medical records show that plaque had built up in his coronary arteries prior to his 2001 heart attack. Tyberg explained that such plaque deposits can rupture and lead to a blockage that results in a heart attack.

Called as a defense witness in the product-liability lawsuit, Tyberg described that Humeston had many of the conditions and stresses that can lead to heart attacks, that he suffered a relatively little damage, and that his long-term prognosis for a full recovery and healthy life is good.

"He is recovering nicely from his heart attack," Tyberg said.

Questioned by Merck lawyer Diane Sullivan of Dechert L.L.P., Tyberg told the jury about other medical issues that put Humeston at higher risk of a heart attack, including high blood pressure, chronic and acute stress, weight and a sedentary lifestyle. Tyberg noted that as a 56-year-old man at the time of the 2001 heart attack Humeston was at high risk. He said about 20 percent of heart attacks occur in men in Humeston's age group.

Merck contends that Humeston's personal risk factors, not Vioxx, led to his heart attack.

The lawsuit against Merck is the second to come to trial and is being closely watched after the company was tagged in August with a $253 million verdict by a Texas jury. Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck has vowed to appeal the verdict. Under Texas law, the amount would be capped at $26 million.

Merck's lawyers appear to be trying to use Tyberg's testimony to say other factors caused Humeston's heart attack, especially since he only took Vioxx intermittently over two months, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who has been following the trial from Virginia.

"However, in New Jersey, I think Humeston only needs to show that Vioxx contributed to the attack," Tobias wrote in an e-mail response to questions. "The jury may also be concerned about Merck's apparent effort to blame Humeston and his risk factors."

The trial, now well into its fifth week, has featured six motions for mistrial by Merck, a shouting match between the judge and a lawyer for Merck, but more often dry testimony dealing with clinical and scientific subjects.

As the day wore on, the lawyers began sniping, including during a sidebar discussion with Judge Carol E. Higbee. Several times during the afternoon, the judge called a break and sent the jury out of the room for extended periods of time so the lawyers could argue over the admissibility of parts of Tyberg's testimony.

During one break, Humeston lawyer Christoper Seeger said the trial was "like being beaten with a baseball bat" because, he contends, Merck has been trying to get testimony and evidence in front of the jury that has not been permitted by Higbee. At the same time, Sullivan expressed exasperation at the repeated objections by Seeger and questioned why Tyberg could not testify to his opinion on published scientific papers or other public documents.

Despite the interruptions, Sullivan was able to elicit testimony from Tyberg indicating that he felt Humeston was under significant and chronic stress that became acute a day before his heart attack. Tyberg told the jury that in his opinion Humeston's heart attack was triggered by stress and was caused by his multiple risk factors, not Vioxx.

A former Marine and two-time recipient of the Purple Heart, Humeston contends Vioxx caused his heart attack after just a few weeks of use and that Merck failed to warn physicians about its risks. The Idaho man filed his suit two years ago before Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market last year.

Merck says there was no clinical proof that Vioxx raises heart-attack risk before 18 months of use.

-----

To see more of The Philadelphia Inquirer, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.philly.com.

Copyright (c) 2005, The Philadelphia Inquirer

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

MRK,

Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer

More News in this Category