9 million for Vioxx claimant

[Guest guest]

Vioxx Plaintiff Gets $9M; Merck to Appeal

By JOHN CURRAN, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 19 minutes ago

http://news./s/ap/20060411/ap_on_bi_ge/vioxx_trial;_ylt=ApXQFrwMdf.cF6b\

ZEG5gouis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGI2aDNqBHNlYwM3NDk-

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. - A jury awarded $9 million in punitive damages Tuesday

to a man who blamed his heart attack on Vioxx, finding that manufacturer

Merck & Co. knowingly withheld information about the risks of its arthritis

drug from federal regulators.

Saying Merck's conduct showed a " wanton and willful disregard of another's

rights, " the state court jury added to the $4.5 million it had awarded last

week to McDarby, 77, of Park Ridge, and his wife, Irma.

Last Wednesday, the same panel found that Merck failed to warn of the drug's

risks and committed consumer fraud in misrepresenting them to prescribing

physicians.

" This is a victory for all of the and Irma McDarbys of the world,

people who are taking medications every single day, who now have at least a

chance of making sure that the companies that are making those medications

are going to do the right thing, " said Jerry Kristal, one of McDarby's

lawyers.

Merck, which pulled the blockbuster drug off the market in 2004 after a

study linked it to increased risk of heart attack and stroke, said it would

appeal Tuesday's verdict.

" Merck's actions were proper and did not, in any way, call for this award as

defined by New Jersey law, " said Chuck Harrell, spokesman for Merck's legal

team. He said the company's appeal would focus on evidence and testimony

that state Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee barred from the trial,

including limits she set on expert witnesses.

" The evidence was clear that we provided the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration with the information about Vioxx that we were required to

provide. And under New Jersey law, that means punitive damages should not

have been awarded, " Harrell said.

After the verdict was announced, Merck shares initially rose 1.5 percent,

then fell 36 cents, or 1.1 percent, to close at $34.06 in trading on the New

York Stock Exchange. Nearly 14 million shares, double normal volume, changed

hands.

Tuesday's decision capped a five-week trial that combined two cases: that of

McDarby, a retired insurance agent who took the drug for four years, and

Cona, 60, of Cherry Hill.

Jurors rejected Cona's heart attack claim but found in both cases that Merck

misrepresented the risks of Vioxx and concealed them from prescribing

physicians.

After the verdict, jurors spoke briefly to reporters, calling the verdicts

" fair and honest. " They wouldn't answer questions.

McDarby, a diabetic who uses a wheelchair, wasn't in court for the verdict

Tuesday. His wife said the money - which the couple won't get immediately

because of appeals - would go toward giving her husband around-the-clock

medical care.

Asked if she had anything to say to Merck, Irma McDarby responded: " The

truth shall set you free. "

" It's the integrity that's involved, the morality that's involved. All these

things are important, " she said.

Merck faces about 9,650 Vioxx cases in state and federal courts, and has

vowed to try them one at a time.

Harrell, the Merck spokesman, said the verdicts won't change Merck's

strategy of defending the Vioxx lawsuits.

The trial was the first involving people alleging use of 18 months or more.

That's important because the study that prompted Merck to voluntarily

withdraw the drug found that its risks doubled after 18 months' use.

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, has won two cases and lost two, and

another trial is under way in Texas.

The initial stock-price jolt suggested Wall Street was relieved the punitive

award wasn't higher, according to health care analyst Steve Brozak of WBB

Securities LLC.

" It would have basically sent a message that this was egregious behavior " by

Merck if the jury had imposed the maximum, Brozak said. He said uncertainty

over what the jury would do has been a drag on Merck shares.

Analyst at Prudential Financial called the total award of

$13.5 million " substantial. "

" Seeing as there are 10,000 Vioxx cases already filed, with more likely on

the way, (Merck's) Vioxx liability could end up being larger than we have

previously anticipated if more verdicts are handed down similar to the one

just reached in the McDarby case, " wrote.

___

AP Business writers Gold in Newark and A. in Trenton

contributed to this report.

" I know God won't give me more than I can handle,

I just wish he didn't trust me so much! "

Mother Theresa

http://www.kidsgetarthritistoo.org.au