Merck Product Liability Trial Update

We reported in August 2005 that Merck, one of the worlds largest pharmaceutical giants, faced a series of lawsuits in the US following the success of a claimant in Texas, USA who sued the firm for millions of dollars after a jury found them responsible for her husbands death after he had taken the drug Vioxx.

Vioxx is the trade name for rofecoxib which is a type of painkiller known as a Cox-2 inhibitor. It has been mostly used to provide pain relief for suffers of arthritis. Originally heralded as a breakthrough pain reliever, the drug appeared to eliminate side effects such as stomach problems which can be unwelcome effects of other pain killers.  However, those claiming against Merck argue that the drug is responsible for causing an increased chance of heart attacks and that whilst Merck knew this they failed to take the drug off the market or provide Doctors with adequate warnings about the possible risks of taking the drug.

Update
In the second case to go to trial in November 2005, a jury in New Jersey found in favour of Merck on the point that they did not give Doctors adequate warning and Merck was held to be not liable.

The most recent case to go to trial in Houston in December 2005 ended in a mistrial. After deliberating for what was described by the judge as a 'reasonable' amount of time, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision. The case was a Federal case which means that it was held in a court used to deciding cases involving the US constitution. This meant that the unanimous decision of the jury was required to reach a verdict. Conversely both previous cases were State cases where only a majority decision of the jury was required.

The crux of the matter appears to be that the victim in this case had only taken Vioxx for one month. It was previously believed that the risk of heart attack was only increased after having taken Vioxx for a prolonged period believed to be around 18 months.

December's decision was seen by some as a victory for Merck; some commentators also argue that this sends out the message to Claimants that the strong scientific evidence being presented by Merck will be difficult to overcome.

Whilst Merck has been quoted as being 'disappointed' with the result, it will undoubtedly be prepared for a retrial. It will also undoubtedly be prepared for the plethora of cases and permutations of cases that await them in the New Year.