October 09, 2006

[Apologies if this has already been posted: I just found out about it, and am leaving for the airport for a speaking enagement so cannot check past postings. MK]

A Federal jury has just found for Merck In a post-warning Vioxx Case. [subscription to Lexis required]

The suit against Merck was taken by a 56-year-old Kentucky man, and was the first trial involving Vioxx prescribed after an April 2002 change to the product label to include information about cardiovascular risk. (In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657, Robert Garry Smith v. Merck & Co. Inc., No. 05-4379, E.D. La.; See August 2006, Page 10).

A source told Mealey's Publications that the jury answered "no" to these special verdict questions - whether Merck, by a preponderance of the evidence, failed to adequately warn the plaintiff's treating physician of a risk created by Vioxx; and whether Merck, by clear and convincing evidence, knowingly failed to disclose a material fact to Smith's treating physician in a circumstance in which it was required to do so.