Vioxx Trial Verdicts in New Jersey and Texas

Jury Verdicts Involve Two Long-term Use Cases in New Jersey, One Short-term Case in Texas

New Jersey Joint Trial: McDarby and Cona Cases

In the McDarby case, a New Jersey state court jury awarded the plaintiffs $4.5 million on April 5, 2006 after deciding that Merck failed to warn John McDarby and his wife of Vioxx's cardiovascular risks, and that Merck committed consumer fraud in its marketing of Vioxx. The same jury later awarded $9 million in punitive damages to Mr. McDarby and his wife based on their finding that Merck knowingly withheld material information about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx from the FDA. Mr. McDarby suffered a heart attack in April 2004, during which he fell and broke his hip, after taking Vioxx for four years.

On April 5, 2006 the same New Jersey jury found for Merck in the Cona case. After the trial there was some speculation among observers that the jury did not believe that Thomas Cona, age 60, had a sufficient drug supply so as to take Vioxx on a daily basis for 22 months, as alleged in his case. The jury, however, found consumer fraud in Cona's case and awarded him the costs of his three vioxx prescriptions -- about $45, which will be under New Jersey's consumer protection law.

Given the duration of Vioxx use alleged by Mr. McDarby and Mr. Cona, these two New Jersey cases were the first two "long-term use" cases involving Vioxx.

South Texas Trial: Garza Case

In the Garza case, on April 21, 2006 a Texas state court jury awarded $7 million in compensatory damages for mental anguish and personal loss, and $25 million in punitive damages to the family of a 71-year-old man who suffered a fatal heart attack in 2001 after taking Vioxx for less than a month. The $25 million in punitive damages will be reduced to $750,000 pursuant to a Texas law that puts a limit, or cap, on punitive damages given the evidence introduced during the Garza trial.

Since Mr. Garza took Vioxx for less than a month, this case is considered a "short-term use" case in the Vioxx litigation.

Merck's Reaction To Current Status

As of April 2006, Merck has a split record in its six Vioxx cases that have gone to trial: Three jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs, and three verdicts in favor of the drug company.

During an April 2006 conference call soon after the Garza verdict, Merck's general counsel Kenneth Frazier said that Merck will continue to take each Vioxx case to trial because the drug company's conduct had been proper every step of the way. Mr.Frazier also said that the current split record in Vioxx cases that have gone to trial to date makes this continued strategy "responsible."

It has been widely reported that 11,500 Vioxx cases had been filed as of mid-April 2006.

Read more about Vioxx on our Vioxx Information Page >>