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

Jury finds Merck not liable over Vioxx

Posted on: Thursday, 3 November 2005, 17:39 CST

By Jon Hurdle

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) - In a major victory for Merck & Co Inc., a jury on Thursday decided the drugmaker provided adequate warning to doctors about health risks associated with its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx and did not commit consumer fraud in marketing the drug.

The nine-member jury in state court also found that Merck did not misrepresent, suppress or conceal information about increased risks of heart attack and stroke from the pain and arthritis medicine. Merck shares rose on the decision.

"It's a terrific victory for Merck," said Ned Riley, chief executive of Riley Asset Management. "It might open the door for Vioxx to come back on the market with some labeling (changes). It may not be the lost drug everyone anticipated."

The case brought by 60-year-old postal worker Frederick Humeston, who claimed Vioxx caused his heart attack, was being closely watched as a potential indicator of future Vioxx litigation as Merck is facing more than 6,500 lawsuits from former Vioxx users who claim to have been harmed by the drug.

"Merck would have been in a desperate situation if it had not won this case because a negative verdict would have encouraged waves of other plaintiffs to come forward," said Steve Brozak, an analyst with WBB Securities LLC.

Last August, in the first Vioxx case to go to trial, a Texas jury found Merck liable for the death of a 59-year-old Vioxx user and awarded his widow $253 million in damages. Merck is appealing that decision.

More than 2,700 of the cases already brought against Merck were filed in New Jersey and Judge Carol Higbee, who presided over the case just decided, is expected to oversee the bulk of them.

The jury in New Jersey reached its decision after only about eight hours deliberation, following a seven-week trial in which lawyers for Humeston argued that Vioxx caused his 2001 heart attack and that Merck had hidden the drug's risks.

Vickie Heintz, a 40-year-old juror from Mays Landing, New Jersey, said Humeston had "way too many health issues," to win his case.

"If you looked at his medical records over the past 20 years it was riddled with a history of medications and health problems. Stress absolutely played a role," Heintz said.

Merck's lawyers had argued that the postal worker was under tremendous job-related stress at the time of his heart attack.

"Frederick Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking Vioxx or not," said Jim Fitzpatrick, one of Merck's attorneys.

INCREASED RISK

The plaintiff's side had accused Merck of hiding evidence for years that Vioxx caused increased heart risks in order to protect huge profits.

The drugmaker said it pulled the $2.5 billion-a-year drug from the market in September 2004 as soon as it had clear data showing that long-term Vioxx use doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

"This case involved a person who only used Vioxx for a short amount of time and used it intermittently," said Albert Rauch, an analyst for A.G. Edwards. "If Merck would have lost this, there would not be much they could win."

Humeston had only taken the drug for about two months for knee pain from an old Vietnam war wound, while the study that led to the Vioxx withdrawal last year found increased heart risk only after 18 months of continuous use.

"I wish to impart to other plaintiffs, do not let this deter you because Vioxx is a bad product," Humeston told reporters after the verdict.

Humeston's attorney Christopher Seeger said it would take time to get over the defeat but added: "Merck would be making a big mistake if they think we're not going to be looking for another trial date immediately. We're going to keep fighting."

The first federal Vioxx case is scheduled to go to trial on November 28 before U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon of New Orleans, who is operating out of Houston because of Hurricane Katrina.

"There will be other Vioxx trials and we will vigorously defend them one by one over the coming years," Merck general counsel Kenneth Frazier said in a statement.

Merck has set aside $675 million to fight the Vioxx lawsuits.

Analysts are saying Merck could still eventually have to pay anywhere from $5 billion to $50 billion to cover potential liability from the growing wave of Vioxx lawsuits.

Merck shares closed up $1.07, or 3.8 percent, at $29.48 on the New York Stock Exchange after climbing as high as $30.50 just after the verdict was rendered.

The share price is still down 34 percent since Merck pulled Vioxx from the market.

(Additional reporting by Ransdell Pierson and Lewis Krauskopf in New York and Jessica Hall in Atlantic City)

(Writing by Bill Berkrot in New York)

Source: REUTERS

More News in this Category