Verdict reached in Vioxx Case

[Steff]

Jurors Reach Verdict in Vioxx Case

3 minutes ago

 

 

 

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. - Jurors hearing the second liability trial over withdrawn painkiller Vioxx reached a verdict Thursday, which was expected to be announced by about 10:30 a.m. EST.

 

The jurors have 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 have 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.

 

The first question they have to answer is whether Merck failed to adequately warn doctors of risks it either knew or should have known about prior to Humeston's heart attack.

 

If jurors find Merck failed to warn, they would then rule on whether Vioxx contributed to Humeston's heart attack and whether he and his wife should get compensatory damages.

 

If the jury awards compensatory damages, jurors would then hear arguments from Merck and Humeston's lawyers about whether punitive damages should be awarded to punish Merck.

 

If Merck is cleared of failing to warn, the jury still must consider whether Merck committed consumer fraud in marketing Vioxx by giving physicians misleading information or omitting data about its risks. But Merck faces a penalty for that of $30 at most — the amount Humeston paid toward his Vioxx prescriptions.

 

The company, which faces more than 6,500 similar lawsuits, lost its first trial over Vioxx. In that case, a Texas jury found Merck liable in a Vioxx user's death. Damages there will be cut to about one-tenth of the jury's $253 million award due to that state's caps on punitive damages.

[Steff]

Jury Finds for Merck in Second Vioxx Case

JOHN CURRAN, Associated Press Writer

30 minutes ago

 

 

 

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. - Merck & Co. won a major victory in the battle over its Vioxx painkiller Thursday when a New Jersey state jury found that the drugmaker properly warned consumers about the risks of the medication. The finding means Merck won't be held liable for the 2001 heart attack suffered by a man taking Vioxx.

 

After deliberating for less than eight hours over three days, the jury cleared Merck of allegations it failed to warn consumers about the drug's risks and engaged in "unconscionable commercial practices" in marketing it to doctors and their patients.

 

The verdict was Merck's first win out of two Vioxx-related trials. In August, a Texas jury found the company liable in a Vioxx user's death. Damages there will be cut to about one-tenth of the jury's $253 million award due to that state's caps on punitive damages.

 

Much of the seven-week trial, eagerly watched by lawyers and plaintiffs from around the country, relied on the testimony of medical experts. Witnesses for Merck testified the company believed Vioxx was safe for the heart before the drug was pulled from the market a year ago after a study showed it doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes when taken for at least 18 months.

 

The company faces more than 6,500 similar lawsuits. Merck has said it plans to fight the product liability suits one by one.

 

The Texas and New Jersey cases have drawn national attention from pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers and stock analysts who are trying to determine what lies ahead for Merck. The company's stock rose 6 percent, or $1.69, to $30.10 in late morning trading after the verdict.

 

Members of Merck's legal team, some with tears in their eyes, hugged each other after the New Jersey verdict.

 

"I feel pretty good," said lead counsel Diane Sullivan. "I'm proud of the folks at Merck."

 

The verdict capped a trial centering on Frederick "Mike" Humeston, 60, of Boise, Idaho, who was stricken two months after he began taking the drug to ease pain from a Vietnam war knee injury.

 

Merck's lawyers appeared to be fighting a losing battle, repeatedly clashing with Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee, who denied key motion requests by them and threw out the testimony of Merck's first witness on procedural grounds.

 

On five different occasions, Merck asked her to declare a mistrial. Each time, she refused.

 

In the end, that turned out to be a blessing — and a much-needed one — for Merck, which pulled Vioxx off the market last year after a study showed it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months' use.

 

The six-woman, three-man jury concluded that Merck adequately disclosed information about the drug's risks and could not be held accountable for Humeston's heart attack. The jurors voted 8-1 that Merck properly warned doctors about risks with Vioxx and voted unanimously on three counts that Merck did not mislead doctors about the drug's safety.

 

Humeston's lawyers painted a picture of the two-time Purple Heart winner as a victim of a greedy drug company that put profits before patients, rushing Vioxx to market in an unsuccessful bid to beat rival Celebrex onto drugstore shelves.

 

About 20 million Americans took Vioxx after it hit the market in 1999, embracing it for its effectiveness in relieving pain while sparing them the upset stomachs, ulcers and other gastric problems associated with some other analgesics.

 

At its peak, Vioxx was a $2.5 billion-a-year blockbuster.

 

It worked for Humeston, alleviating pain in his left knee, which sustained shrapnel injuries during his U.S. Marine Corps service in Vietnam. But on Sept. 18, 2001, Humeston took two Vioxx pills after work and within hours suffered a mild heart attack.

 

His doctors blamed it on Vioxx, saying Humeston — a hiker and former mountain guide — had clear arteries and no history of heart disease. He wouldn't have taken it had he known about the heart attack risk, lawyer Chris Seeger told jurors.

 

Merck repeatedly reminded jurors that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved it as safe and effective on four occasions for use against different types of pain, the last a month before Merck recalled it.

 

The company's lawyers cited Humeston's elevated blood pressure, weight and stress from an ongoing dispute he was having with his U.S. Postal Service bosses, saying they were to blame for his heart attack, not Vioxx.

 

The night before the heart attack, Humeston was called by his personal physician in response to an office visit by Postal Service fraud investigators in which they showed him a secretly-recorded videotape of Humeston working on a car at his home.

 

Merck's expert cardiologist testified that that call was the "absolute trigger" for the heart attack.

 

While Humeston made for a sympathetic plaintiff, he also was a relatively healthy one, appearing in court for nearly every day of testimony and taking the stand for one day.

 

In the Texas case, the victim was a Wal-Mart produce manager who died after taking Vioxx; his widow was the plaintiff.

 

Merck's lawyers also told jurors there was no scientific link between short-term Vioxx use and heart attacks.

[mreye]

The stock jumped about $1.50 in the 45 seconds after the announcement.