The verdict: Vioxx caused Mike Humeston, an Idaho postal worker, to suffer a heart attack and he and his wife were awarded $20 million in compensatory damages by a state jury. Punitive damages must still be decided.

The Vioxx scorecard: Merck 9, Vioxx patients 5.

The verdict is vindication for Humeston, who lost his first trial in late 2005. However, state court Judge Carol Higbee tossed the decision, citing new evidence subsequently published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Humeston, 61, suffered a heart attack in September 2001, several months before Merck put a stronger warning on the Vioxx product labeling.

“This is a big wake-up call to Merck,” Mark Lanier, the attorney who convinced jurors in the trial’s first phase that Merck committed consumer fraud, tells Bloomberg News. “They’d better start settling some cases. There’s going to be a punitive finding that’s going to easily be in nine figures.”

The same five-man, three-woman jury ruled 10 days ago that Merck was negligent and failed to provide adequate warnings about heart risks prior to Humeston’s heart attack. That led to a second phase of the trial to determine whether Vioxx was a cause.

In a statement, Merck announced plans to appeal.

Merck did win another trial earlier this month that was held simultaneously. In that case, the same jury ruled the drugmaker did provide adequate warnings in a lawsuit brought by the family of a 44-year-old Wisconsin accountant who suffered a fatal heart attack.[tags]Merck, Vioxx[/tags]