Merck Gets Walk

Updated from 3:37 p.m. EST

An Atlantic City, N.J., jury handed a major victory to Merck (MRK) on Thursday in the second product liability case concerning former blockbuster arthritis drug and pain reliever Vioxx.

The jury found that Vioxx wasn't the "proximate cause" of a man's heart attack, rejecting the contention by plaintiff Frederick Humeston that Merck failed to adequately warn physicians about the product's potential cardiovascular risks.

Jurors also disagreed with the claim by Humeston that Merck had engaged in consumer fraud in marketing Vioxx to doctors.

The verdict caused a spike in Merck's shares, which climbed as high as $30.90. The stock closed at $29.48, up $1.07, or 3.8%. About 38 million shares traded, more than four times the average daily volume.

"We presented a case that was solidly based on scientific evidence," Jim Fitzpatrick of the law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed and a Merck defense attorney, said in a prepared statement. "Frederick Humeston would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking Vioxx or not. In addition, Merck presented evidence that it carefully studied Vioxx before and after [Food and Drug Administration] approval, and consistently made the results of those studies available to the FDA and the medical community."

Humeston, an Idaho postal worker, met with reporters after the case was over, saying that while he was disappointed with the jury's decision, he felt the "system has worked." He also said he didn't want other plaintiffs to be discouraged because he lost his case.

He added that even though he believed Vioxx to be a "bad product," his lawsuit against the company "wasn't an indictment against the scientists at Merck in general."

Appealing Texas

Now the Whitehouse Station, N.J., drugmaker is batting .500 in Vioxx lawsuits. Merck lost a case in August when a Texas state court jury awarded $253.4 million in actual and punitive damages to the widow of a man who took the drug. Merck says it will appeal that verdict. Even if Merck loses the appeal, the award will be reduced by at least 90% because Texas law places a limit on punitive damages.