NY Times, November 3, 2005 Jury Rules Merck Is Not Liable for Heart Attack of Vioxx User By ALEX BERENSON
ATLANTIC CITY, Nov. 3 - A jury today ruled that Merck was not liable for the heart attack an Idaho postal worker suffered after taking the painkiller Vioxx, a complete reversal of an August verdict in which a Texas jury awarded $253 million to the widow of a man who died of an irregular heartbeat after taking the drug. The contrasting verdicts mean that many more trials are likely to take place as plaintiffs and Merck, the nation's third-largest drug maker, try to figure out where they stand. The New Jersey jury of six women and three men have been deliberating since Tuesday in the case brought by Frederick Humeston, 60. In the courtroom following the verdict the sense of relief and joy on the defense was palpable as defense lawyers hugged and kissed and cried silently. Shares of Merck rose $1.93, or 6.8 percent, to $30.36, on the New York Stock exchange after the verdict was announced. The stock has fallen about 40 percent since the company removed Vioxx from the market in September 2004, after a clinical trial showed that the drug raised the risk of heart attack and stroke. Merck immediately issued a statement saying that it was pleased with the outcome. "We represented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence," said Jim Fitzpatrick, of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a member of Merck's defense team. "Frederick Humeston would have suffered an attack when he did whether he was taking Vioxx or not." While much of the evidence presented in the New Jersey and Texas trials was similar, the plaintiff in this case appeared to have a weaker case because he had suffered only a mild heart attack after taking Vioxx for two months while the plaintiff in the first case was the widow of a man who had died after taking Vioxx for eight months In addition, the plaintiff's lawyer in the first case was Mark Lanier, considered a top trial lawyer, while the lead lawyer for plaintiffs in this case, Christopher Seeger, has tried only a handful of cases and at times appeared to bore the jury with long-winded explanations of difficult science. Mr. Humeston also appeared to be a less sympathetic plaintiff than the widow in the Texas case, Carol Ernst. Evidence at the trial showed that he complained repeatedly in writing about his workload to his supervisors at the post office, which investigated his ability to work in summer 2001. In August, a jury in Angleton, Tex., found Merck liable in the first Vioxx case to go to trial, and awarded $253 million to Ms. Ernst, whose husband died of an irregular heartbeat in 2001. Texas law would limit the award to $26.2 million, and Merck has said it will appeal. Merck faces lawsuits from almost 12,000 people who contend that they or their family members were hurt or killed by Vioxx. Some epidemiologists have estimated that as many as 100,000 people may have suffered heart attacks as a result of taking Vioxx, a figure the company disputes. Vikas Bajaj contributed reporting for this article. -- www.marxmail.org
