ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AFX) - Jurors in the seventh trial over withdrawn painkiller Vioxx deliberated for about 5 1/2 hours without reaching a verdict Wednesday in the case of a 68-year-old woman who blames the Merck & Co. drug for her 2004 heart attack.
The seven jurors are to return to Atlantic County Superior Court on Thursday morning for the second day of deliberations in the 5 1/2-week trial.
Lawyers for Elaine Doherty, a grandmother of six from Lawrenceville, N.J., alleged during the trial that Vioxx was a major cause of her heart attack and that Merck downplayed the risks of Vioxx both to doctors and to patients.
Merck lawyers countered that company officials disclosed the drug's risks appropriately and that Doherty's own cardiac risk factors -- including obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure and cholesterol -- were responsible for her heart attack.
The five-man, two-woman jury sent out two requests Wednesday: first for a transcript of the testimony of Doherty's physician, Dr. William Caskey, and then for transcripts of testimony by the plaintiff and her husband, Daniel.
The first questions the jury must decide during deliberations concern whether Merck properly warned doctors and Elaine Doherty that Vioxx increased risk of heart attack and stroke. If jurors find the company did not properly warn, they must then consider whether adequate warning would have affected what drug Caskey prescribed and whether Doherty still would have taken Vioxx.
This is the first Vioxx case in which jurors will vote on whether Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck failed to warn patients about the drug's cardiac risks, rather than just doctors as in prior trials. That gives the plaintiffs an additional way to prevail on a crucial issue, one required if the jury is to decide to order Merck to pay compensatory or punitive damages.
If the jurors decide that Merck failed to warn either Doherty or her doctors, and that Vioxx was 'a substantial contributing factor' in her heart attack, then they will decide whether compensatory and punitive damages are warranted. Five of the seven jurors must agree for a verdict.
At its peak, Vioxx was a $2.5 billion-a-year blockbuster for Merck, which withdrew it from the market on Sept. 30, 2004, saying research showed the drug doubled risk of heart attack and stroke after 18 months' use. Data released since then indicate the risk started much sooner and persisted after people stopped taking Vioxx, numerous doctors say.
Merck now faces more than 13,000 Vioxx-related lawsuits and has vowed to fight them one by one. The company has lost three trials so far, with juries awarding multimillion-dollar verdicts in each. The company plans to appeal those losses.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.