MERCK WINS NEW JERSEY VIOXX CASE

A New Jersey jury found in favor of Merck & Co. Inc. earlier this month, rejecting the claims of a patient who blamed her heart attack on nearly three years of Vioxx use.

The jury found that Merck acted responsibly in informing the medical community about the benefits and risks of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-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.”

The 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.

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.

Elaine Doherty, a homemaker from Lawrenceville, N.J., alleged that she took 25 mg of Vioxx 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 withdrew it from the market in September 2004.

This is the seventh case that has gone to trial. An eighth case is currently under way in Los Angeles.