Merck Wins New Jersey Vioxx Product Liability Case

PharmaManufacturing.com
07/14/2006

A state court jury in New Jersey found in favor of Merck & Co. July 13 in the seventh Vioxx-related liability case to go to trial. The jury rejected the claims of a patient who blamed her heart attack on nearly three years of Vioxx use, and found that Merck acted responsibly in informing the medical community about the benefits and risks of the FDA-approved medicine.

"The company acted responsibly, the science was on our side, and the jury agreed," said Jim Fitzpatrick of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a member of Merck's defense team in Doherty v. Merck. "Mrs. Doherty would have suffered a heart attack whether she was taking Vioxx or not. Before ever hearing of Vioxx, Mrs. Doherty had multiple risk factors for heart disease, including high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity."

Elaine Doherty, a homemaker from Lawrenceville, N.J., alleged that she took Vioxx 25 mg daily from June 28, 2001, until she suffered a heart attack on Jan. 19, 2004, at age 65. She continued to take the medicine until Merck voluntarily withdrew it from the market in September 2004.

The July 13 verdict marks the third time in four cases that a New Jersey jury found in Merck's favor on a plaintiff's product liability claim.

In the case, Merck presented evidence that it carefully studied Vioxx before and after FDA approval, and consistently made the results of those studies available to the FDA and the medical community.

The jury also found in Merck's favor on the plaintiff's consumer statute claim, specifically finding that Merck did not mislead consumers in its marketing efforts.

"Merck is pleased with the jury verdict," said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. "Today's outcome reinforces our commitment to defend these cases on a case-by-case basis."

Another case is currently under way in Los Angeles.