|
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ (Reuters) Jul 13 - A jury on Thursday found Merck & Co.'s withdrawn COX-2 inhibitor Vioxx (rofecoxib) was not a substantial factor in the MI sustained by a 68-year-old New Jersey woman.
The jury of five men and two women also decided that although Merck failed to warn the plaintiff, Elaine Doherty, about the heart risks of taking Vioxx, it did adequately warn her doctor of such risks.
The jury also found that Merck did not commit consumer fraud in either its marketing of Vioxx to physicians or to the plaintiff.
"The company acted responsibly," said Jim Fitzpatrick, an attorney for Merck. "The science was on our side and the jury agreed. Mrs. Doherty would have suffered a heart attack whether she was taking Vioxx or not," he added.
Merck has now won four of seven Vioxx suits that have been decided in court. In the two previous suits tried in the company's home state of New Jersey, Merck won the first but partially lost the second when a jury found Vioxx had contributed to the heart attack of 77-year-old John McDarby.
Vioxx, launched in 1999, generated about $2.5 billion a year in sales until Merck voluntarily withdrew it in September 2004 after finding it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes in people who used it for 18 months or more.
Plaintiffs have filed at least 11,500 Vioxx suits, about half of them in New Jersey, against Merck, which has said it will fight them one by one.
|
Message
Boards
