Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2729

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Jury Says Merck Properly Warned Users About Vioxx Risks
Associated Press 2005 Nov 3

Keywords:
Vioxx

Notes:

Ralph Faggotter’s Comments:

This is only the second case in the Vioxx legal retribution saga.

Already the tables have turned with the jury jumping in the opposite direction to the first trial.

Perhaps all the litigants who were taking Vioxx for less than 18 months before their heart attacks should give up now.

On the other hand, there are probably many more curious twists and turns to be played out in this tragic tale, so perhaps they should hang on in there a bit longer.

Especially since-
“What is certain, given Merck’s repeated assertions that it will fight the suits one by one, is that the world’s fifth-biggest drug maker will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to defend itself.”

and – “Merck general counsel Kenneth Frazier told reporters in a conference call he believes most cases filed so far – more than 7,000, with half filed in New Jersey state court – involve plaintiffs who took Vioxx for less than 18 months.

The company has set aside $675 million for defense costs, but hasn’t set up a reserve for jury awards or settlements because it’s too soon to estimate what’s needed, Frazier said.
“We do not intend to roll over in these cases when people bring insubstantial claims in an attempt to win money from Merck,” he added. “

see- http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VIOXX_VERDICT_WHATS_NEXT?SITE=NYONE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Full text:

November 3, 2005
Jury Says Merck Properly Warned Users About Vioxx Risks
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. – In a major victory for Merck & Co., a jury has found the drugmaker properly
warned consumers about Vioxx risks. The finding means Merck will not be held liable for the 2001
heart attack suffered by a man taking the painkiller.
The jurors had been deliberating since Tuesday afternoon over whether Vioxx maker Merck & Co. can
be held liable for the Sept. 18, 2001 heart attack suffered by Idaho postal worker Frederick “Mike”
Humeston – and whether Merck misled the public about the former blockbuster arthritis drug’s
cardiovascular risks.
The jury deliberated for an hour late Tuesday and for an additional 6 1/2 hours Wednesday.
Humeston, 60, of Boise, Idaho, says Merck failed to warn physicians and consumers about risks posed
by Vioxx, which the company stopped selling last year because of links to heart attacks and strokes
with long-term use.
Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, who presided over the case, told jurors before they began
deliberations Tuesday to take their time weighing the evidence.
The case, the second Vioxx lawsuit to go to trial, took seven weeks to present and was thick with
highly technical medical testimony. Humeston’s lawyers presented experts blaming Vioxx for the heart
attack, and Merck countered by telling jurors there is no proof the drug harms people who take it less
than 18 months.
Jurors had been instructed to avoid media accounts of the trial while they are serving on the panel.
However, they are not sequestered and are allowed to go home at night.