Jury Finds Merck Liable in Vioxx Death
By GARY MCWILLIAMS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 19, 2005 5:08 p.m.
ANGLETON, Texas -- Merck & Co. was found negligent in the death of a 59-year-old triathlete who used Vioxx, a prescription painkiller taken by more than 20 million Americans before it was linked to heart attacks. The jury awarded the man's widow $24 million in actual damages, plus $229 million in "exemplary," or punitive damages, for a total of around $253 million.
A jury of seven men and five women ruled against Merck on each of three key questions. They found Merck failed to warn doctors of the Vioxx's danger, that the drug was improperly designed, and that Merck's negligence caused Robert Ernst's death. Merck plans to appeal.
WALL STREET JOURNAL VIDEO
The plaintiff in the Vioxx trial, Carol Ernst, and her attorney Mark Lanier comment on the jury's ruling that Merck is liable in the death of a triathlete who used the drug. Plus, Merck's lead attorney Jonathan Skidmore answers questions about plans to appeal the ruling. CNBC's Maya Kulycky reports from the court house on the jury's.
Mark Lanier, attorney for Carol Ernst, widow of Robert Ernst, slammed papers down and shouted "Yes!" when the judge read the punitive damages. Mr. Lanier told reporters, referring to the jury: "These people are good, solid people. They know right and they know wrong. It sends the message that the drug companies must tell us the good the bad and the ugly."
Merck shares dropped $2.35, or 7.7%, to $28.06 at 4 p.m. on the New York Stock Exchange in the wake of the verdict. The company lost 27% of its value on a single day last year when the company acknowledged Vioxx increased the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death and pulled the drug from the market.
The decision came midway through the second day of deliberations in this closely watched trial. The case is the first to go to trial of more than 4,000 lawsuits alleging injuries from Vioxx. Analysts have speculated Merck's liability could reach $18 billion.
Plaintiff Carol Ernst
In a statement, Merck said the plaintiff "did not meet the standard set by Texas law to prove Vioxx caused" the death of Mr. Ernst. Merck said it is "examining various bases for appeal," including that certain testimony presented to the jury was by "unqualified experts." Corporate defendants usually are successful in lowering jury damages or at least settling for a lower amount before the cases reach an appeals court. (See Merck statement.)
Merck reiterated that it will fight individual Vioxx cases "one by one over the coming years."
The case, Carol A. Ernst v. Merck & Co. Inc., in District Court of Brazoria County, Tex., had been considered a challenge for the plaintiff because Mr. Ernst's death certificate said he died of an arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat.
Merck voluntarily removed Vioxx from the market last September after a study linked Vioxx to a higher rate of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months. Merck argued in the trial that there was no evidence linking Vioxx to arrhythmias, so it couldn't have caused Mr. Ernst's death.
Mr. Lanier, the attorney for the plaintiff, argued that Vioxx led to a heart attack that caused the arrhythmia, but that the clot had been dissolved or dislodged by the time of the autopsy.
The verdict is particularly nettlesome for Merck because it sends a signal that plaintiffs may not need a heart attack or stroke to successfully sue Merckâany heart problem will do. More than 20 million Americans took Vioxx while it was on the market, and more than 4,000 lawsuits have been filed against Merck. Thousands more were expected, even before Friday's verdict.
Before the trial, analysts had estimated Merck's liability from Vioxx at $4 billion to more than $20 billion.
Write to Gary McWilliams at
gary.mcwilliams@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112447069284018316,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us