[an error occurred while processing this directive]
BBC News
watch One-Minute World News
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 April 2006, 16:39 GMT 17:39 UK
Merck fined $9m in Vioxx lawsuit
John McDarby
John McDarby is now confined to a wheelchair
Drugs firm Merck has been ordered to pay $9m (5.1m) in damages to a US man after its Vioxx painkiller was found to have contributed to his heart attack.

A New Jersey jury awarded the punitive damages to 77-year old John McDarby, almost a week after it found Merck liable for his heart attack.

It said Merck had failed to warn about the dangers of taking the drug.

Merck said it would appeal against the verdict as well as a previous $4.5m award for compensatory damages.

"The jury heard irrelevant and prejudicial information from the plaintiffs' attorneys about Merck and an appeal will be our next step," said Kenneth Fraser, Merck's general counsel.

The jury found their conduct was in disregard of public safety, meaning that it was more than an ordinary negligent act
Frank McClellan, Temple University

"The evidence is that Merck acted ethically and in a responsible manner," he added.

Merck withdrew Vioxx in 2004 when it was linked to higher rates of heart attacks, and it now faces a raft of legal actions.

The firm says it thoroughly tested the drug before it went on sale and carefully monitored it afterwards.

'Damaging verdict'

Under state law, the New Jersey jury could have awarded a maximum of $22.5m in punitive damages to Mr McDarby, who took Vioxx for four years and is now confined to a wheelchair.

Analysts said the scale of the award indicated the jury believed Merck had knowingly withheld information about the risks attached to Vioxx.

PREVIOUS VIOXX TRIALS
August 2005: Merck ordered to pay a Texas widow $253m in damages
November 2005: Merck cleared in the case of Idaho postal worker
February 2006: Merck found not guilty in the case of the death of Richard Irvin, following an earlier mistrial

"This is a very damaging verdict for Merck because the jury found their conduct was in disregard of public safety, meaning that it was more than an ordinary negligent act," said Frank McClellan, professor of law at Temple University in Philadelphia.

However, Merck said Mr McDarby had failed to prove that Vioxx was a "substantial" contributory factor in his heart attack.

Merck has lost two of the five Vioxx liability cases which have so far come to court in the US.

Last August, it was ordered to pay $253m in damages to the widow of a Texas man but this amount will be reduced since the state caps the amount which can be paid in punitive damages.

Merck is facing 10,000 lawsuits from users of Vioxx who claim the drug contributed to serious illness.

Merck has pledged to fight every single legal action.




SEE ALSO:
Split ruling in latest Vioxx case
06 Apr 06 |  Business
US drug company wins Vioxx case
17 Feb 06 |  Business
Merck cleared in Vioxx drug case
03 Nov 05 |  Business
Thousands may seek Vioxx damages
20 Aug 05 |  Business


RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites


PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

Americas Africa Europe Middle East South Asia Asia Pacific