Merck just got hammered! A New Jersey Jury awarded $3 Million to 77 year old John McDarby and another $1.5 million to his wife. They found that Vioxx caused his heart attack and that Merck hid the dangers of Vioxx from consumers AND from physicians.
Mr. McDarby had an interesting case that could spell trouble for Merck. Not only is he 77 years old, he is a diabetic with clogged arteries. Merck has insisted that it could not be found liable in cases where the victim has risk factors such as these. In fact, many plaintiff attorneys had been hesitant to take cases like that. But Mr. McDarby’s lawyers stood Merck’s argument on its head. The McDarby legal team insisted that Mr. McDarby was EXACTLY the type of person who would not have been taking Vioxx had Merck disclosed the risks. And the jury understood.
Of course it is not hard to believe that the jury would get it. After all, there are piles of documents and lots of testimony about all the steps Merck took to HIDE VIOXX’s RISK FACTORS. In fact, the jury awarded treble damages to Mr. McDarby and his co-defendant under New Jersey’s consumer fraud law.
He took Vioxx for 4 years and Merck has admitted to an increased risk to users who took it for at least 18 months. Of course there is lots of evidence indicating that use of Vioxx for a shorter time also increases the risk of negative cardiovascular events including strokes and heart attacks, but we’ll save that for another post.
Another negative for Merck on this is that Mr. McDarby SURVIVED HIS VIOXX INDUCED HEART ATTACK. Despite the fact that he lived, the jury still awarded him and his wife $4.5 Million.
And, to top it off, the jury now has to decide on punitive damages against Merck. We’ll find out just how bad the jury thinks Merck’s actions were when that verdict is read.
Now, Merck can point to the fact that McDarby’s co-defendant – Thomas Cona – age 60 – did not receive a multimillion dollar verdict. This is not necessarily bad news for many victims. Mr. Cona could only prove three prescriptions for Vioxx over a period of 22 months (in contrast to the 4 years of consistent use by Mr. McDarby). In a sense, this lays out a framework for other Vioxx attorneys in future cases.
So, if you think you have a Vioxx claim and have not yet hired a Vioxx lawyer, here are a few suggestions:
Siegfried & Jensen of Salt Lake City Utah
The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos in Baltimore Maryland
