2nd Trial for Merck on Vioxx Begins
New JerseyATLANTIC CITY, Sept. 14 - Merck's potentially long legal struggle over its painkiller Vioxx edged forward on Wednesday as lawyers presented opening arguments in the second personal injury suit against the drug to reach a jury.
The case, Humeston v. Merck, comes to trial almost one month after a jury in Angleton, Tex., ordered Merck to pay $253 million in damages to Carol Ernst, whose husband died after taking Vioxx for eight months. That devastating defeat caused Merck stock to fall 8 percent in an afternoon and it has yet to recover.
Now plaintiffs' lawyers, Merck executives and Wall Street analysts are watching this New Jersey casino town to see whether the award in the Ernst case - which Texas law will automatically reduce to $26 million - was a fluke or a portent of future verdicts that Merck may face.
Many of the same documents and arguments used in Texas will play a role in the New Jersey case. But the trial teams here appear much more evenly matched than in Texas, where Merck's lawyers were up against the theatrical W. Mark Lanier, who is widely regarded as one of the most effective plaintiff lawyers in the country. And this time, instead of a grieving widow, Merck is being sued by a man who took Vioxx for only a short time and sustained a mild heart attack that he survived.
Frederick Humeston, a 60-year-old Idaho postal worker, asserts that Vioxx caused his heart attack in September 2001. The case is being tried in a New Jersey state court before Judge Carol E. Higbee, who is overseeing at least 2,400 lawsuits that have been filed in New Jersey against Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J.
Six jurors, along with four alternates, are hearing the lawsuit in the civil courthouse of Atlantic County Superior Court. A verdict would require agreement among five of the six jurors. As in the Texas case, the plaintiff's lawyers will point to documents that show Merck was concerned about Vioxx's heart risks even before it began selling the drug. Merck, as in Texas, will focus its defense on the issue of whether Vioxx actually caused Mr. Humeston's heart attack.
Mr. Humeston had other risk factors for heart attacks, including stress and obesity, and took Vioxx for only two months before his heart attack, according to lawyers for the company. Merck has said its own studies disclosed heart risks from Vioxx only after long-term use.
"There is no medical or scientific evidence that Vioxx contributed to Mr. Humeston's heart attack," Jim Fitzpatrick of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a defense lawyer representing Merck, said in a statement.
For Merck, the stakes in the Vioxx litigation are enormous. At least 5,000 people have already sued Merck, asserting that Vioxx caused them to suffer heart attacks and strokes, and lawyers say that they expect at least 25,000 suits to be filed eventually. About 20 million people took Vioxx between May 1999 and September 2004, when Merck stopped selling the drug after a clinical trial showed that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes in patients taking it for at least 18 months.
Analysts have estimated that Merck, the third-largest American drug maker, could eventually be forced to pay as much as $50 billion to settle Vioxx lawsuits if juries continue to rule against it. Since Merck stopped selling Vioxx, its stock has fallen almost 40 percent, cutting nearly $40 billion from the company's market value. In May, Raymond V. Gilmartin, Merck's chairman and chief executive, resigned under pressure.
Merck, which has a different trial team here than it did in Texas, will not publicly discuss its strategy in this case. But Merck appears to have carefully examined the Texas case in an effort to avoid making the same mistakes that doomed its trial team down there.
In the Texas case, two lawyers representing Merck split time during the opening arguments, making it difficult for jurors to connect with either. In contrast, Diane Sullivan, a lawyer at Dechert, was the only lawyer to speak for Merck on Wednesday.
Also, Ms. Sullivan spoke without notes, unlike Merck's Texas lawyers, who read from a lectern and appeared stiff and formal. Ms. Sullivan also repeatedly asked jurors to use their "common sense" and at one point said the jurors would have to be like detectives in the television show "C.S.I." - a reference that appeared to be taken straight from Mr. Lanier's opening argument in the Texas trial.
Ms. Sullivan also repeatedly noted to jurors that the Food and Drug Administration had approved Vioxx, as well as the drug's warning label.
Meanwhile, Christopher Seeger, the lead lawyer for Mr. Humeston, was far less smooth than Mr. Lanier had been.
Mr. Seeger read his opening argument from behind a lectern and sometimes appeared to bog down in the complex scientific details about the way that Vioxx affects the cardiovascular system. But he did highlight many of the same documents to prolong her lifespan it seems. And I would do it gladfully and invariably if not for the need of practicality in this life. I have all night to ponder on our colors J, and attach meanings to them. Exclusively this evening, the issues of you and I supercedes any other concerns. Carpe Diem. It is almost morrow and I know by the next sunrise, it's significance would already begin to corode.
This is why i blog. almost morrow and I know by the next sunrise, it's significance would already begin to corode.
This is why i blog.
The case, Humeston v. Merck, comes to trial almost one month after a jury in Angleton, Tex., ordered Merck to pay $253 million in damages to Carol Ernst, whose husband died after taking Vioxx for eight months. That devastating defeat caused Merck stock to fall 8 percent in an afternoon and it has yet to recover.
Now plaintiffs' lawyers, Merck executives and Wall Street analysts are watching this New Jersey casino town to see whether the award in the Ernst case - which Texas law will automatically reduce to $26 million - was a fluke or a portent of future verdicts that Merck may face.
Many of the same documents and arguments used in Texas will play a role in the New Jersey case. But the trial teams here appear much more evenly matched than in Texas, where Merck's lawyers were up against the theatrical W. Mark Lanier, who is widely regarded as one of the most effective plaintiff lawyers in the country. And this time, instead of a grieving widow, Merck is being sued by a man who took Vioxx for only a short time and sustained a mild heart attack that he survived.
Frederick Humeston, a 60-year-old Idaho postal worker, asserts that Vioxx caused his heart attack in September 2001. The case is being tried in a New Jersey state court before Judge Carol E. Higbee, who is overseeing at least 2,400 lawsuits that have been filed in New Jersey against Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J.
Six jurors, along with four alternates, are hearing the lawsuit in the civil courthouse of Atlantic County Superior Court. A verdict would require agreement among five of the six jurors. As in the Texas case, the plaintiff's lawyers will point to documents that show Merck was concerned about Vioxx's heart risks even before it began selling the drug. Merck, as in Texas, will focus its defense on the issue of whether Vioxx actually caused Mr. Humeston's heart attack.
Mr. Humeston had other risk factors for heart attacks, including stress and obesity, and took Vioxx for only two months before his heart attack, according to lawyers for the company. Merck has said its own studies disclosed heart risks from Vioxx only after long-term use.
"There is no medical or scientific evidence that Vioxx contributed to Mr. Humeston's heart attack," Jim Fitzpatrick of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a defense lawyer representing Merck, said in a statement.
For Merck, the stakes in the Vioxx litigation are enormous. At least 5,000 people have already sued Merck, asserting that Vioxx caused them to suffer heart attacks and strokes, and lawyers say that they expect at least 25,000 suits to be filed eventually. About 20 million people took Vioxx between May 1999 and September 2004, when Merck stopped selling the drug after a clinical trial showed that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes in patients taking it for at least 18 months.
Analysts have estimated that Merck, the third-largest American drug maker, could eventually be forced to pay as much as $50 billion to settle Vioxx lawsuits if juries continue to rule against it. Since Merck stopped selling Vioxx, its stock has fallen almost 40 percent, cutting nearly $40 billion from the company's market value. In May, Raymond V. Gilmartin, Merck's chairman and chief executive, resigned under pressure.
Merck, which has a different trial team here than it did in Texas, will not publicly discuss its strategy in this case. But Merck appears to have carefully examined the Texas case in an effort to avoid making the same mistakes that doomed its trial team down there.
In the Texas case, two lawyers representing Merck split time during the opening arguments, making it difficult for jurors to connect with either. In contrast, Diane Sullivan, a lawyer at Dechert, was the only lawyer to speak for Merck on Wednesday.
Also, Ms. Sullivan spoke without notes, unlike Merck's Texas lawyers, who read from a lectern and appeared stiff and formal. Ms. Sullivan also repeatedly asked jurors to use their "common sense" and at one point said the jurors would have to be like detectives in the television show "C.S.I." - a reference that appeared to be taken straight from Mr. Lanier's opening argument in the Texas trial.
Ms. Sullivan also repeatedly noted to jurors that the Food and Drug Administration had approved Vioxx, as well as the drug's warning label.
Meanwhile, Christopher Seeger, the lead lawyer for Mr. Humeston, was far less smooth than Mr. Lanier had been.
Mr. Seeger read his opening argument from behind a lectern and sometimes appeared to bog down in the complex scientific details about the way that Vioxx affects the cardiovascular system. But he did highlight many of the same documents to prolong her lifespan it seems. And I would do it gladfully and invariably if not for the need of practicality in this life. I have all night to ponder on our colors J, and attach meanings to them. Exclusively this evening, the issues of you and I supercedes any other concerns. Carpe Diem. It is almost morrow and I know by the next sunrise, it's significance would already begin to corode.
This is why i blog. almost morrow and I know by the next sunrise, it's significance would already begin to corode.
This is why i blog.
<< Home