Closing arguments are underway in New Jersey's latest Vioxx trial, pitting drug maker Merck against a 68-year-old heart attack survivor.
The verdict sheet, the list of questions upon which the jury must vote, for the first time in a Vioxx trial will ask whether Merck failed to warn individual patients that evidence showed its blockbuster painkiller increased risk of heart attacks, according to the plaintiff's lawyers.
In the previous Vioxx trials, juries instead have ruled on whether Merck failed to warn doctors of the risk.
Jim Pettit, a lawyer for Lawrenceville homemaker Elaine Doherty, said New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee made the ruling because Merck ran broadcast and print ads directly targeting patients.
"None of those ads informed any Vioxx user that Vioxx was dangerous or could cause a heart attack," Pettit's partner, attorney Michael Galpern, said in an interview.
Closing arguments were originally set for last Wednesday but were delayed when a state budget impasse shut down the courts and other government operations.
The New Jersey trial is the seventh over Vioxx; an eighth trial is under way in Los Angeles.
More here.
No comments:
Post a Comment