Shortly after the first trial in August 2005 in Texas (the Ernst case), the second Vioxx case was decided by a jury in November 2005. The case was heard in New Jersey.
The trial involved weeks' of testimony, dealing with the drug's risks. Much of the evidence was similar to that heard in the Texas case.
The plaintiff Frederick Humeston was a 60-year old postal worker who had a heart attack, which he survived, in September 2001 after taking Vioxx for less than two months.
The jury were asked to decide whether Merck failed to warn of known risks, whether it led to the heart attack and whether Merck misled doctors about Vioxx.
The jury found in favour of Merck. One juror later indicated that they decided that Humeston's heart attack was more likely due to stress and anxiety and not Vioxx. There was also evidence suggesting the Humeston was prone to complaining about his workload, while his employer was also investigating him for suspected malingering.
Merck was obviously relieved by this verdict, but numerous other cases were already looming.
No comments:
Post a Comment