|
Merck Wins in 2nd Trial Over Vioxx; A New Jersey jury says the company is not to blame for a painkiller user's heart attack. Legal experts say this case was weaker than the first. A New Jersey jury granted a reprieve to beleaguered drug maker Merck on Thursday, finding it blameless in the nation's second trial over the once-popular painkiller Vioxx. It was welcome news for the company, which is appealing a $253-million verdict in August that held it responsible for the death of a Texas man -- the first Vioxx case to reach a jury. "The jury understood the company behaved responsibly in regard to developing this drug and in marketing this drug," said Kenneth Frazier, Merck's general counsel. "We feel very vindicated." But New Jersey-based Merck & Co. still faces 6,500 suits from plaintiffs who blame the drug for heart attacks, strokes and deaths. And analysts stood by earlier estimates that the cases could eventually cost Merck up to $50 billion. "This means that they can win some of these cases, but they can also lose some," said Columbia University law professor John Coffee. "But there will be thousands of them the plaintiffs' bar will be willing to try." Merck pulled the drug off the market in September 2004. That is when, the company says, it first had data clearly showing that long-term Vioxx use doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months of continuous use. ... Legal experts also pointed to other differences between the two cases. Among them: Humeston faced a jury in Merck's home state -- a jury with just nine members, unlike the 12 who heard the Texas case. "The smaller the jury, the more variance you get just from the play of the numbers," said Marc Galanter, a University of Wisconsin law professor.
For a copy of the complete article, contact CJRG. |