Win some, lose some.

In the Mike Humeston case, the state court jury ruled 8-0 that Merck failed to adequately warn doctors about Vioxx safety and also decided the drugmaker violated consumer fraud laws. This means the case goes to the second phase in which the jury next decides whether Vioxx caused Humeston’s 2001 heart attack. This was a retrial - the first time around, Merck won, but the judge overturned the verdict. He sat stoically with his arm around his wife’s shoulder as the verdict was read.

In the Brian Hermans case, the jury voted that Merck did warn adequately, although the drugmaker did violate consumer fraud laws. As a result, though, the jury won’t have to decide whether Vioxx caused the deceased accountant’s fatal heart attack and the Hermans estate will only receive reimbursement for the medicine and legal fees.

In a statement, Merck continued to carp about the two-phase approach to the trial and denied Vioxx harmed Humeston. “Mr. Humeston, unfortunately, had the kind of medical issues that cause people to have heart attacks every day, regardless of whether they were taking Vioxx,” said Hope Freiwald of the Dechert law firm. “In addition to his individual risk factors for developing coronary disease, the evidence will show that Mr. Humeston actually did have coronary disease. This takes decades to develop and had nothing to do with his use of Vioxx.”

Pharmalot thanks Susan Tood of The Star-Ledger of New Jersey for the instant dispatch.

Meanwhile, you can read about the lawyers fighting Merck over Vioxx in an Illinois trial.
[tags]Merck, Vioxx[/tags]