Merck Finishes Defense in Vioxx Case
December 9, 2005 06:56

"Merck & Co. completed a speedy defense presentation in the first federal Vioxx trial after calling to testify just four witnesses over two days. The Whitehouse Station, N.J., company called to the stand a rheumatologist, two company scientists and a pathologist to try to counter two prongs of the plaintiff's allegations: that Merck knew Vioxx could cause heart attacks and strokes and took steps to conceal the information, and that Vioxx had a hand in the 2001 fatal heart attack of Richard "Dicky" Irvin. Lawyers for both sides will present closing statements today." Heather Won Tesoriero, Wall Street Journal, 12/8/05

"The judge presiding over 3,500 Vioxx cases in New Jersey has set Feb. 27 as the next trial date, this time for a consolidated trial of two plaintiffs' claims, despite drug maker Merck & Co.'s urging that each case be decided on its own facts. One plaintiff, John McDarby, 76, of Park Ridge, N.J., took Vioxx for arthritis pain from March 2000 until his heart attack in April 2004. The other, Thomas Cona, 59, of Cherry Hill, N.J., took Vioxx from August 2001 until his heart attack in June 2003. Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee in Atlantic County also scheduled three cases for trial on April 24 and two for June 12. Higbee grouped the cases based on the alleged damage as well as the specific years and length of time the plaintiffs took the prescription painkiller." Lisa Brennan, New Jersey Law Journal, 12/2/05

"While president of Merck Research Laboratories, Edward Scolnick told some colleagues he was in 'minor agony' about whether the pain-reliever Vioxx led to heart attacks, according to a videotaped deposition played for jurors yesterday in the nation's first federal trial involving the drug. Jurors watched several depositions by Scolnick, who is now retired. He said he initially believed a 2000 study showing Vioxx users suffered five times as many heart attacks as users of the older painkiller naproxen, sold under the brand name Aleve. Although he changed his mind several months later and still attributes the disparity to naproxen's heart-friendly qualities rather than a defect in Vioxx, Scolnick said he wanted Merck to do other studies that were not done." Angela K. Brown, Associated Press, 12/6/05

"As if Merck & Co. did not have enough problems with thousands of Vioxx personal injury cases pending against the company, a state court in Atlantic City, N.J., has certified a nationwide class of third-party payors alleging that the corporation misrepresented or omitted material Vioxx information, causing all class members to erroneously list and pay for the drug. Inexplicably, the court ruled that the question of whether thousands of third-party payors were misled by Merck's advertising was a "predominant" common issue that did not require an individual analysis of each purchase decision made by each member of the class. Even worse for Merck, the court held that New Jersey law applied in all 50 states, although a number of states preclude consumer class actions altogether and numerous other states require individual proof of reliance on the allegedly deceptive ads, also precluding class certification. Unless reversed on appeal, this ruling could subject Merck to refund claims by millions of Vioxx customers amounting to billions of dollars. International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68\Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., No. ATL-L-3015-03 (Atlantic Co., N.J., Super. Ct. Law Div. July 29, 2005)." Hugh Latimer, National Law Journal, 12/5/05