Law Articles
To search for a particular term please use the following search box.
Law Topics
Click on a Topic to see available articles for that topic.
- Accidents
- Administrative Law
- Admiralty Law
- Articles
- Banking
- Bankruptcy Law
- Canon Law
- Case Law
- Civil Law
- Civil Rights
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Commercial Law
- Common Law
- Comparative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Contracts
- Corporate Law
- Courts
- Criminal Law
- Cyber Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Employment Law
- Equity
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Fiduciary Law
- General Practice
- Government
- Health Law
- Immigration Law
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Jurisprudence
- Labor Law
- Law and Economics
- Maritime Law
- Military Law
- Natural Law
- Personal Injury Law
- Philosophy of Law
- Property Law
- Public Law
- Real Estate Law
- Social Security
- Space Law
- Statutory Law
- Tax Law
- Traffic Law
- Trusts and Estates
- Water Law
Return to Law Dictionary Index
Jury finds Merck not liable over Vioxx
By Jon Hurdle
ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) - In a major victory for Merck & Co Inc., a jury on Thursday decided the drugmaker provided adequate warning to doctors about health risks associated with its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx and did not commit consumer fraud in marketing the drug.
The nine-member jury in state court also found that Merck did not misrepresent, suppress or conceal information about increased risks of heart attack and stroke from the pain and arthritis medicine, sending Merck shares up 7 percent.
"We presented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence," said Jim Fitzpatrick, one of Merck's attorneys. "Frederick Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking Vioxx or not."
The case was being closely watched as a potential indicator of future Vioxx litigation as Merck is facing more than 6,500 lawsuits from former Vioxx users who claim to have been harmed by the drug.
"Merck would have been in a desperate situation if it had not won this case because a negative verdict would have encouraged waves of other plaintiffs to come forward," said Steve Brozak, an analyst with WBB Securities LLC.
INCREASED RISK
The plaintiff's side had accused Merck of hiding for years evidence that Vioxx caused increased heart risks in order to protect huge profits.
The drugmaker said it pulled the $2.5 billion a year drug from the market last year as soon as it had clear data showing that long-term Vioxx use doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
Humeston had only taken the drug for about two months for knee pain from an old war wound, while the study that led to the Vioxx withdrawal last year found increased heart risk only after 18 months of continuous use.
More than 2,000 of the cases against Merck were filed in New Jersey and Judge Carol Higbee, who presided over the Humeston case, is expected to oversee the bulk of them.
Read the full article at Reuters