Jury finds Merck not liable in fifth federal Vioxx trial

[JURIST] A federal jury in New Orleans returned a verdict [Merck press release] in favor of pharmaceutical giant Merck [corporate website] Wednesday, concluding that the company did not fail to adequately warn a Tennessee man's doctors about risks associated with the painkiller Vioxx [Merck Vioxx Information Center website; JURIST news archive]. Anthony Dedrick suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx, and his lawyers argued that Merck failed to sufficiently warn his doctors about the risks of taking the drug and that the lack of a warning caused the heart attacks. Both claims were rejected by the jury. Merck faces thousands of lawsuits over the drug, which was pulled from the market in September 2004 after a study showed that it could double the risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for more than 18 months. This is the fifth federal trial to reach a verdict; Merck has won four of those cases, with the fifth decided in favor of the plaintiff. A federal judge, however, threw out the $50 million jury verdict [JURIST report] in the Merck loss as "grossly excessive" and ordered a new trial to determine damages.

Last month, US District Judge Eldon Fallon, who is responsible for co-ordinating pre-trial procedures [JURIST report] in the federal cases, rejected [order, PDF; JURIST report] a bid to have all federal lawsuits [consolidated litigation website] against Merck brought in connection with Vioxx consolidated in a single national class action against the company. AP has more.



 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.