New Jersey verdict for Vioxx drugmaker upheld Mike Rosen-Molina at 3:45 PM ET
[JURIST] A New Jersey superior court judge Monday upheld a Friday jury verdict [DowJones report] for Merck & Co [corporate website], finding that the company had given adequate warning to physicians of the risks associated with its painkiller Vioxx [FDA backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. Judge Carol Higbee rejected a motion by plaintiffs attorney Mark Lanier disputing a finding that the drug company had warned doctors prescribing Vioxx that a 2004 study showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke in patients who took it for longer than 18 months; Lanier represents the estate of a deceased man whose fatal heart attack is alleged to have been caused by the drug.
Merck faces more than 27,000 lawsuits from people who say they were harmed by the once $2.5 billion-a-year drug before it was pulled from the market [press release] in September of 2004. Merck has set aside $1 billion to fight every Vioxx court challenge. In November 2006, a federal judge declined to certify a national class action suit [JURIST report], ruling that it made more sense to try the cases in their respective states of origin. Reuters has more.
Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.