Merck's painkiller Vioxx contributed to the heart attack of an Idaho postal worker, a state jury in Atlantic City ruled Monday. The jury awarded Frederick "Mike" Humeston and his wife $20 million in compensatory damages.
The verdict at the end of the eight-week trial means Merck has now won nine cases and lost five in the mushrooming litigation over its former blockbuster arthritis pill.
Humeston, 61, of Boise, Idaho, suffered a heart attack in September 2001, several months before Merck — under pressure from federal regulators — put a stronger warning about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx on the drug's detailed package insert.
Humeston, a decorated veteran, had taken Vioxx intermittently for about two months for knee pain from a Vietnam War shrapnel wound.
The five-man, three-woman jury ruled on March 2 that Merck was negligent and did not provide adequate warning about those risks prior to Humeston's heart attack. That set the stage for a second phase of the trial, with the jury last week hearing evidence on whether Vioxx contributed to Humeston's heart attack, entitling him to damages.
The jurors awarded Humeston $18 million in compensatory damages and gave another $2 million to his wife, Mary.
The jury, which deliberated for about five hours over two days, also decided Humeston should be reimbursed for his out-of-pocket costs for Vioxx.
A third phase of the trial will now begin, with jurors considering whether they should assess punitive damages against Merck.
Humeston lost his first trial against the pharmaceutical giant in 2005, but New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee granted him a second trial because new evidence surfaced that short-term Vioxx use could also be risky. Merck insists Vioxx didn't increase cardiac risks until after 18 months of use, but many doctors say research disproves that.
"It's been a long battle. I'm just happy that justice finally prevailed," said Humeston's lawyer, Christopher Seeger.
More
The verdict at the end of the eight-week trial means Merck has now won nine cases and lost five in the mushrooming litigation over its former blockbuster arthritis pill.
Humeston, 61, of Boise, Idaho, suffered a heart attack in September 2001, several months before Merck — under pressure from federal regulators — put a stronger warning about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx on the drug's detailed package insert.
Humeston, a decorated veteran, had taken Vioxx intermittently for about two months for knee pain from a Vietnam War shrapnel wound.
The five-man, three-woman jury ruled on March 2 that Merck was negligent and did not provide adequate warning about those risks prior to Humeston's heart attack. That set the stage for a second phase of the trial, with the jury last week hearing evidence on whether Vioxx contributed to Humeston's heart attack, entitling him to damages.
The jurors awarded Humeston $18 million in compensatory damages and gave another $2 million to his wife, Mary.
The jury, which deliberated for about five hours over two days, also decided Humeston should be reimbursed for his out-of-pocket costs for Vioxx.
A third phase of the trial will now begin, with jurors considering whether they should assess punitive damages against Merck.
Humeston lost his first trial against the pharmaceutical giant in 2005, but New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee granted him a second trial because new evidence surfaced that short-term Vioxx use could also be risky. Merck insists Vioxx didn't increase cardiac risks until after 18 months of use, but many doctors say research disproves that.
"It's been a long battle. I'm just happy that justice finally prevailed," said Humeston's lawyer, Christopher Seeger.
More
Update: They awarded $47.5 million in total.
The jury found the drug maker's handling of Vioxx was "oppressive, outrageous or malicious."
They awarded Frederick "Mike" Humeston and his wife $20 million in compensatory damages and $27.5 million in punitive damages.
2 comments:
While I ordinarily would not be inclined to respond to blog postings, I wanted to point out that there was an inaccuracy in the reporting of the testimony of a witness, Dr. Nancy Santanello, a Merck scientist who testified in a VIOXX trial in Madison County, Illinois. Some reports cited only part of her quotes. The purpose of this posting is to quote her public testimony correctly.
Dr. Santanello was asked about some of the many studies the company undertook regarding the medicine and said, according to the court transcript, "I think you need to look at the product long-term if you're going to use it in the long-term and so, therefore, I think you need longer term studies which I know we did."
Unfortunately, some reports left off the second half of the sentence.
As Dr. Santanello effectively made clear in her testimony, VIOXX was one of the most studied drugs ever, before the FDA approved it as safe and effective. Merck continued to study VIOXX and then when the APPROVe study showed a potential long-term risk, the company informed the FDA it was going to pull the medication from the market because that would be in the best interest of patients.
Kent Jarrell-spokesman for Merck’s Outside Counsel in the VIOXX litigation.
While I ordinarily would not be inclined to respond to blog postings, I wanted to point out that there was an inaccuracy in the reporting of the testimony of a witness, Dr. Nancy Santanello, a Merck scientist who testified in a VIOXX trial in Madison County, Illinois. Some reports cited only part of her quotes. The purpose of this posting is to quote her public testimony correctly.
Dr. Santanello was asked about some of the many studies the company undertook regarding the medicine and said, according to the court transcript, "I think you need to look at the product long-term if you're going to use it in the long-term and so, therefore, I think you need longer term studies which I know we did."
Unfortunately, some reports left off the second half of the sentence.
As Dr. Santanello effectively made clear in her testimony, VIOXX was one of the most studied drugs ever, before the FDA approved it as safe and effective. Merck continued to study VIOXX and then when the APPROVe study showed a potential long-term risk, the company informed the FDA it was going to pull the medication from the market because that would be in the best interest of patients.
Kent Jarrell-spokesman for Merck’s Outside Counsel in the VIOXX litigation.
Post a Comment