Updated from 2:40 p.m. EDTA New Jersey state court jury has rejected a woman's claim that Merck's ( MRK) arthritis drug Vioxx caused her heart attack two years ago. The Thursday victory is Merck's fourth among seven verdicts in the Vioxx litigation. Merck says it will appeal all of the trials that it lost. The seven-member jury said that Vioxx, which Merck removed from the market in September 2004, didn't play a contributing role in the heart attack of Elaine Doherty, now 68, of Lawrenceville, N.J. Additionally, the jury said Merck adequately provided information about the drug's risks to Doherty's doctor, although it said the company didn't warn her. The jury said the company didn't commit consumer fraud in the marketing of the drug to physicians or Doherty. Drawing any conclusions from the verdict is difficult considering there are at least 11,500 U.S. personal injury suits that have been filed against Merck. In addition, there are at least 190 purported class-action suits, as well as an unknown number of lawsuits in other countries. "Merck is pleased with the jury verdict," said Kenneth Frazier, the general counsel of the Whitehouse Station, N.J., drugmaker. "Today's outcome reinforces our commitment to defend these cases on a case-by-case basis." Doherty suffered a heart attack in January 2004, and she said she had used Vioxx since mid-2001. Merck attorneys argued that Doherty had several risk factors, including diabetes, obesity and clogged arteries, that caused the heart attack. Merck said she continued to take Vioxx until the company removed it from the market. "The company acted responsibly, the science was on our side, and the jury agreed," said Jim Fitzpatrick of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a member of Merck's defense team. "Mrs. Doherty would have suffered a heart attack whether she was taking Vioxx or not."