A state jury Tuesday sided with Vioxx maker Merck & Co. over claims that its once-blockbuster painkiller caused the 2003 deadly heart attack of an obese 52-year-old Illinois woman, concluding her own poor health likely led to her demise.
The Madison County jurors deliberated about six hours over two days before rejecting the request from Patty Schwaller's widower to hit Merck mightily in the pocketbook for allegedly contributing to his wife's death and not sufficiently warning that the drug carried potentially dangerous cardiovascular side-effects.
In siding with Merck, the jury concluded that Vioxx was not a "proximate cause" in the death of Patty Schwaller, who had taken the drug for about 20 months before suddenly collapsing and dying in her Granite City home.
An attorney for the Schwallers pledged to appeal.
"Today, at least for the moment, Goliath bested David," Andy Crouppen said on behalf of Frank Schwaller, who showed no emotion as the verdict was read and left the courthouse without commenting.
Merck, which pulled Vioxx off the market in 2004 after its research showed it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes, celebrated its 10th victory in 15 cases that have been tried in the mushrooming litigation over Vioxx. It was the first trial in the Midwest and had been conducted in a county known for large awards favoring plaintiffs.
"This was a very tragic event," Dan Ball, an attorney for Merck, told reporters moments after he mouthed "thank you" several times to jurors in the courtroom. "But the tragedy was not related in any way to Vioxx."
Merck isn't out of the woods. The company, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., has been deluged with more than 27,000 personal injury lawsuits and another 265 potential class-action lawsuits alleging harm from Vioxx. The company has reserved $1.64 billion in its Vioxx legal defense fund and said again Tuesday it plans to fight each lawsuit.
"Plaintiffs have the burden of proving their claims, and we believe these cases are best suited for individual review," Kenneth Frazier, Merck's executive vice president and general counsel, said in a news release.
During the monthlong trial peppered by numbingly medical jargon, Merck lawyers insisted that 5-foot-2 Patty Schwaller had several risk factors for heart disease, including her weight that ranged from 250 to 300 pounds, diabetes, high blood pressure and a sedentary lifestyle.
Frank Schwaller's attorneys pressed that his late wife had no heart attacks, strokes or symptoms of congestive heart disease before her fatal collapse. And the widower alleged that Merck failed to adequately study Vioxx's possibly harmful side-effects and publicly downplayed worries by outside researchers that the drug could put users at greater risk of heart attacks or strokes.
But jurors concluded Tuesday that while Merck knew or should have known Vioxx may have posed dangers to patients like Patty Schwaller, Vioxx labels in 1999 and 2002 _ well before Patty Schwaller's death _ adequately urged caution among Vioxx users with cardiovascular risks including hypertension.
One juror, Jennifer Fourcault of Granite City, told reporters that pinpointing what caused Patty Schwaller's death was hampered because her body was cremated without an autopsy. Fourcault and other jurors said the case spent too much time generally attacking Merck's conduct before and after Vioxx's release and not enough on Patty Schwaller specifically.
"This is about one person," Fourcault said.
The trial has been closely watched in Madison County, which has gained national notoriety as a place where lawyers from across the country file cases involving everything from asbestos exposure to medical malpractice, hoping for big payouts.
On March 12, jurors in Atlantic City, N.J., found that Vioxx contributed to an Idaho postal worker's 2001 heart attack, reversing the verdict in the man's first trial and hitting Merck with a total of $47.5 million in damages. If the verdict and damage amounts are upheld on appeal, it could be the biggest hit to Merck so far.
In New Orleans, a judge has ordered a new trial over what he called a "grossly excessive" $51 million jury award last August to a South Carolina man who used Vioxx.
A New Jersey Supreme Court panel also is considering whether to allow health insurers and union health plans to sue Merck jointly to recover money they paid for Vioxx prescriptions _ a lawsuit potentially worth more than $15 billion.
___
On the Net:
Merck & Co.: http://www.merck.com