Jury is still out on Vioxx

On Nov. 3, 2005 in what has come to be known as the Second Vioxx Trial, jurors found that Vioxx did not directly cause the minor heart attack of a Boise, Idaho Vietnam War veteran. The now-banned painkiller, manufactured by Merck & Co. Inc., has been scientifically proven to increase the risk of heart attack and other “cardiovascular events.”

However lawyers for Merck argued that the heart attack victim had other health complications that were more likely to be the cause, including high blood pressure, obesity, and work stress. They also stated that Vioxx was approved by the FDA for a wide range of pain relief use at the time the victim was taking the drug.

At least one legal analyst has stated that the plaintiff’s health could have given the jury the reasonable doubt it needed to absolve Merck. The fact that the trial was held in New Jersey, where the pharmaceutical company is headquartered, may have also resulted in a jury more sympathetic to the company.

In the first Vioxx trial, held in Texas, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff who died of a heart attack. But in this case, lawyers were able to show a direct link to Vioxx use and the subsequent heart attack.

Can’t predict future cases based on first two

Neither trial can be shown as a trend to predict how juries will find in the at least 6,500 other pending Vioxx lawsuits. So far, Merck is apparently planning to take each case to court one by one. Legally speaking this may be to the company’s advantage since it will be facing off against many different firms, and not all will have the legal experience that Merck has access to. However, the clear and proven link between Vioxx and heart problems is easy enough for potential jurors to understand, and hard to fight against. Merck will likely use similar tactics, trying to establish reasonable doubt by investigating patient’s past medical history and current state of health.

What has yet to be proven as well are the rumors that Merck actually knew about the possibly deadly side effects of its drug while it was on the market. As a manufacturer, Merck is 100% liable for the safety of their product and if the company did know about the side effects, they had a legal (not to mention moral) obligation to announce their findings to the FDA. E-mails and other documents, which hint that Merck knew as far back as 2000, have not been admitted into court so far.

If you or a loved one has suffered a heart attack, stroke, or other heart-related problem while taking Vioxx, contact a Vioxx lawyer at Jim S. Adler & Associates. The firm has more than 30 years of litigation experience against major corporations who fight tooth and nail to protect their own interests. Make sure that your rights don’t get thrown to the wayside; get the legal experience of Jim S. Adler & Associates to guard your rights. Contact us today for a free case review.