Next Set of Vioxx Cases In New Jersey Given February 2006 Trial Date

Judge Higbee Orders Two 18-Month Vioxx Cases Consolidated for Trial In NJ

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee has consolidated the next two Vioxx cases into one trial, which is scheduled to start on February 27, 2006 in Atlantic County, NJ. Lawyers for Merck, however, have voiced the drug company's opposition to Judge Higbee's plan of trying two Vioxx cases at once. Those Merck lawyers have, on several occasions, asked Judge Higbee to abandon the consolidated Vioxx trial plan but to no avail as of January 1, 2006.

A point of significance about these next two Vioxx lawsuits going to trial in New Jersey is that they involve plaintiffs who took Vioxx for 18 months or more. In the three Vioxx trials during 2005 -- Ernst v. Merck (wrongful death case in Texas; plaintiff verdict with $253 million awarded by jury), Humeston v. Merck (personal injury case in New Jersey; defense verdict), and Irvin / Plunkett v. Merck (wrongful death case in federal court Vioxx MDL; mistrial due to deadlocked jury) -- the plaintiffs had taken Vioxx for a shorter period of time, ranging from a few weeks to eight months. During each of those earlier Vioxx trials, the defense lawyers for Merck had argued that Vioxx could not cause a heart attack or any other serious cardiovascular problems until the patient had taken Vioxx for 18 months or more. In those earlier trials, therefore, Merck seemingly admitted that Vioxx can cause an increased risk of heart attack and stroke where a person has 18 months of Vioxx use or more.

Moreover, as one will recall, the study that prompted Merck to withdraw Vioxx from the market in September 2004 showed that there was a higher risk of suffering a Vioxx-related heart attack or stroke after 18 months of Vioxx use.

The plaintiffs in these next two New Jersey Vioxx cases are Thomas Cona and John McDarby.

Mr. Cona is 59 years old. According to his lawsuit, Mr. Cona took Vioxx for more than two years before he suffered a heart attack in June 2003. This Vioxx lawsuit, Cona v. Merck, is a personal injury case.

Mr. McDarby is 76 years old. According to his lawsuit, Mr. McDarby took Vioxx for more than two years before having his heart attack in April 2004. This Vioxx lawsuit, McDarby v. Merck, is a personal injury case, also.

It has been reported that Merck's lawyers have raised some doubt about whether Mr. Cona and Mr. McDarby actually took Vioxx for more than 18 months, as alleged in their respective lawsuits. According to a November 28, 2005 Associated Press article, Merck lawyer Ted Mayer commented: "They're both alleged to be 18 months or more. We never know what will turn up when we get to trial."

At the same time as announcing the consolidated Cona and McDarby Vioxx cases, Judge Higbee set an April 24, 2006 trial for three other New Jersey Vioxx cases and, thereafter, a June 5, 2006 trial date for two more NJ Vioxx cases.

The first federal Vioxx case, Irvin / Plunkett v. Merck, started on November 29, 2005 in Houston with U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon presiding, and ended in a mistrial on December 12 due to a so-called "hung jury". A retrial of the Irvin / Plunkett Vioxx case has been scheduled for February 6, 2005, this time in New Orleans, again with Judge Fallon presiding.

Read more on our Vioxx Information Page >>