|
NJ jury orders Merck to pay $47.5 mln in Vioxx case
2007-03-12
A New Jersey jury on Monday ordered Merck & Co. (NYSE:MRK) to pay $47.5 million in damages after finding that the drugmaker's withdrawn arthritis drug, Vioxx, was responsible for a plaintiff's heart attack and that the company was reckless in promoting the drug. In the second phase of a two-part trial, the jury in Atlantic City also found that Frederick Humeston's doctor would not have prescribed Vioxx to his patient had he been aware of the heart risks associated with the drug. The jury awarded $18 million to Humeston and $2 million to the Idaho postal worker's wife in compensatory damages. The jury later voted 8-0 that Merck's behavior was "willful and reckless" and ordered the drugmaker to pay an additional $27.5 million in punitive damages. Merck said it intends to appeal the verdict and damages. "We feel we have strong grounds for appeal," said Hope Freiwald, a member of Merck's defense team. "The evidence presented to the jury doesn't support the damages." Merck said in a statement it believes the verdict is contrary to the evidence presented at trial and that the punitive damages are without merit, excessive, and not in accordance with constitutional guidance by the U.S. Supreme Court limiting punitive damages. In the first-phase of the unusually staged trial, the jury last week found that Merck failed to provide adequate warnings about health risks tied to the drug, which was pulled from the market in September 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in long-term users. The jury also in the first phase found that Merck committed consumer fraud by making misrepresentations concerning the drug's heart risks and that it intentionally suppressed or concealed material information from physicians prior to the plaintiff's heart attack. "The verdict today finally achieves justice for Mr. Humeston and his family, who were among the many thousands of unsuspecting users of this very dangerous product," his attorney, Christopher Seeger, said in a statement. "The jury recognized the very serious heart risks of Vioxx, risks that Merck went to great lengths to conceal from doctors and the public," Seeger added. HUMESTON CASE WAS RETRIAL The Humeston case was a retrial of a suit the drugmaker had won only to have New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee throw out the verdict after ruling new evidence had come to light that Merck had excluded from the original trial. What had been a win now goes in the loss column for Merck, which is facing more than 27,000 lawsuits from people who claim to have been harmed by the once $2.5 billion-a-year drug. "When another jury in Atlantic City heard all of the facts at one time in the normal way these cases are tried they found Merck acted appropriately," Freiwald said. In the first Humeston trial, the jury was asked to determine whether Merck provided adequate heart risk warnings and whether Vioxx was a primary cause of Humeston's heart attack at the same time. That jury decided Humeston had other health problems that caused his 2001 heart attack. Higbee decided this time to break up the trial into two distinct phases, leaving the critical determination of whether Vioxx caused the heart attack to the second phase. "Merck has expressed concerns all along about the fairness of this process," Freiwald said. "We think this verdict reflects problems with this kind of procedure." Merck shares closed down 32 cents, or 0.7 percent, at $44.29 on the New York Stock Exchange.
| 
