Jury Awards $4.5 Million In Vioxx Case
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
Merck & Company must pay at least $4.5 million to a 77-year-old man who claimed its painkiller Vioxx caused his heart attack and nothing to another plaintiff for the same claim, a New Jersey jury ruled.
Jurors in Atlantic City will weigh punitive damages today after finding Vioxx was a “substantial” factor in the heart attack of John McDarby, a wheelchair-bound diabetic. Jurors found Merck failed to warn Mr. Mc-Darby and another plaintiff, Thomas Cona, 60, of the drug’s risks. Vioxx played no role in Mr. Cona’s heart attack, jurors said. Jurors also said Merck committed consumer fraud, awarding $3,969 on that claim to Mr. McDarby and $45 to Mr. Cona.
“Merck thought that this was going to be an easy win for them, and we said this is exactly the type of person who needed to be protected from Vioxx,” a lawyer for Mr. McDarby, Robert Gordon, said.
Merck shares fell as much as 5% in trading after markets closed in America. Merck, the no. 4 American drugmaker, withdrew Vioxx in 2004 when a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks after 18 months of use. The trial was the first involving longterm use claims. Merck has set aside $970 million to fight 10,000 Vioxx suits, vowing to fight each one and avoid settling.
“The weak cases are now the strong cases,” Mr. Gordon said. “Plaintiffs’ lawyers rejected cases previously of clients with a lot of risk factors. Lawyers are going to go back through their files.”
Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., earlier won trials in Atlantic City and New Orleans. Its only previous loss was to Mr. Cona’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, who won a $253 million verdict in Texas last year. The amount will drop to $26 million under state law.
“It’s a wonderful day,” Mr. Lanier said. “Merck said they couldn’t be beaten in their own backyard. My client wasn’t in it for the money. My client was in it for the proof. This snaps Merck’s winning streak. I think you’ll see a significant increase in the number of filings.”
An attorney for Merck, Chuck Harrell, said the verdict is “a disappointment to the thousands of employees at Merck.” He declined to comment further. “It’s not appropriate to comment as we move into the next phase of the trial.”
