A New Jersey jury rejected claims that Merck failed
to warn about Vioxx’s risks and caused a user’s heart
attack. This is the nation’s second trial over the heath
effects of Vioxx.
The jury found that Merck did properly alert physicians
to a link between Vioxx and an increased risk of cardiovascular
events.
Future Lawsuits
Merck’s win could possibly deter lawsuits
by plantiffs who have had short-term exposure to Vioxx and who
are still alive; however, “minor differences between the
facts of each case can turn a verdict,” says Personal
Injury Attorney Robert Wolf of The Rasansky Law Firm.
“It is difficult to predict what this one
verdict means for other short-term users of Vioxx, but it does
send a message to all Plaintiffs and potential Plaintiffs, though,
that juries will be listening to the facts of each specific case,
and will listen to the medical history of the Vioxx victims.“
Legal Strategies
A memo from two FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
officals played a vital role in the defense’s strategy concluding
that short-term use of Vioxx showed no greater risk of heart attack
than similar pain relievers.
Plantiff’s lead attorney Christopher Seeger has drawn criticism
from observing lawyers due to emphasis put on the complex scientific
issues rather than on marketing practices. The decision to not
call a Brown University epidemiologist expected to testify that
studies indeed showed short-term Vioxx risks also drew criticism.
Differing Verdicts
“While it is unfortunate that the jury did
not find in favor of the Vioxx victim in this recent New Jersey
trial, that should in no way overshadow the $252 million Texas
verdict,” explains Mr. Wolf, “The jury sent a clear
message to all drug manufacturers that safety comes before corporate
profits.”
Although much has been made of Merck’s recent “victory” in
New Jersey on the second Vioxx case to go to trial, there are a
considerable number of differences between the Texas and New Jersey
trials, which are likely explanations for the differing outcomes.
For one, Merck had “home court advantage” as
New Jersey is home to Merck and a large number of its employees.
Secondly, the New Jersey jury consisted of nine
members, rather than the twelve which sat on the Texas jury.
Differing Facts
The facts of the two cases were also considerably
different.
In the New Jersey trial, the Vioxx victim had
a very lengthy history of health problems, which the jury (when
polled afterwards) believed could have easily caused his ultimate
heart attack and even though Merck’s favorable verdict is
seen as a victory, it also shows a true example of how the facts
of each individual case can make all of the difference at trial.
Legal analysts, consumers, victims of Vioxx, and
other drug manufacturers are eagerly anticipating the next Vioxx
trial.
Merck introduced Vioxx in 1999 and is a member
in a class of drugs known as Cox-2 inhibitors. It is estimated
that more than 20 million Americans have taken the drug, making
it one of Merck's biggest sellers, and grossing over $2 billion
annually.
In September of 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from
the market based on studies that showed it caused heart attacks
and strokes after prolonged use. The recall has triggered a flood
of lawsuit against the drugmaker.
Contact a dangerous drug attorney at The Rasansky Law Firm
immediately. You or a loved one have rights that may warrant
a potential lawsuit for claims resulting from the use of Vioxx.
