A Few Recent Vioxx Trial Results
Here are a few updates on what happened during the last few months in trials revolving around Vioxx.
Jan. 18, 2007: A hung jury in Los Angeles forced a mistrial in the cases of two men who blamed their heart attacks on Vioxx.
Dec. 21, 2006: A judge in a Texas widow’s lawsuit over Vioxx reduced a $32 million jury award to about $7.75 million so that it conformed to state law.
Dec. 15, 2006: In Birmingham, Ala., Merck won its second Vioxx trial in less than a week when jurors rejected the claims of a 57-year-old man who blamed the drug for a 2001 heart attack. The jury deliberated just 90 minutes before siding with Merck in the lawsuit filed in 2005.
Dec. 13, 2006: In New Orleans, a federal jury ruled for Merck in rejecting a claim by a 50-year-old Tennessean who blamed Vioxx for his 2003 heart attack. Jurors answered “no” on a verdict questionnaire when asked if evidence showed that Merck failed to adequately warn the man’s doctors of any known risk posed by Vioxx, or that the lack of such a warning was a cause of the man’s heart attack.
Nov. 15, 2006: In New Orleans, a federal jury cleared Merck in the 2003 heart attack suffered by a Utah bank credit manager who had taken Vioxx for 10 1/2 months.
April 21, 2006: In Rio Grande City, Texas, a state jury deliberated about seven hours over two days before finding Merck liable for the death of a 71-year-old man who had a fatal heart attack within a month of taking Vioxx and ordered the company to pay $32 million. The man had suffered from heart disease for more than 20 years.