see "Jury Clears Merck in Vioxx Liability Case" (AP via Yahoo!, 11/3/05)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_bi_ge/vioxx_litigation

Unlike the case in late August (which I blogged about HERE), a jury found in favor of Merck on all counts in yesterday's verdicts in a somewhat similar case.

The main differences between this week's case and the prior case were that the plaintiff in this case:
• is still alive (good for Merck)
• only took Vioxx for a short time (good for Merck)
• actually had a heart attack (bad for Merck)

The jury properly found for Merck (as the prior jury should have), particularly on the question of whether Vioxx caused the plaintiff's heart attack. Based on the evidence, in particular the very short amount of time the plaintiff took Vioxx and his history of being overweight, unhealthy, stressed, and highly medicated, there is no reason to believe Vioxx was even a minor contributing factor.

I am slightly surprised that only one of the nine jurors voted that Merck did not adequately warn doctors about potential risks from Vioxx. If I were Merck, I would try to have as many as possible of the over 6,000 lawsuits filed against them (over Vioxx) tried in New Jersey, where jurors might continue to be sympathetic to the home team.

I was pleased to see a jury think of a corporation as something other than a giant wallet to be raided, and I hope that more cases come out this way. That said, from the bit of evidence I have seen, there is probably a real case to be made that Merck intentionally hid some Vioxx risk from the public. We'll see....