Merck loses third Vioxx suit, ordered to pay US$32m

A state court jury in south Texas dealt Merck another setback on Friday afternoon, awarding US$32 million in damages to the family of Leonel Garza, a 71-year-old retiree who died of a heart attack in 2001 after briefly taking the painkiller Vioxx.

Texas laws that cap punitive damages will automatically reduce the award to US$7.75 million. Still, the verdict is a major disappointment for Merck, because Garza had a long history of heart disease, including a previous heart attack, and took Vioxx for less than a month before he died.

Merck has now lost three of the five lawsuits to reach juries, and each of the losses have involved multimillion-dollar awards for the plaintiffs.

The verdict, by a vote of 10-2, was announced in state court in Rio Grande City, a south Texas town of 13,000 near the Mexican border. Jurors deliberated for about eight hours over two days.

The case began in January, but the trial proceeded intermittently, with jurors hearing only four days of testimony every month, because the judge overseeing the suit is responsible for cases in several counties.

"We're really pleased," said Joe Escobedo, the lead lawyer for the Garza family. "We thought that Mr Garza's case was a very, very strong case."

Lawyers for Merck denounced the verdict and said they expected it would be overturned on appeal. Juries in south Texas have a history of returning large verdicts for local plaintiffs against companies with headquarters out of state, said Richard Josephson of the firm Baker Botts, who was the lead lawyer for Merck's defense team in the case.

Making the case even more difficult for Merck, Garza's family was well known in Starr County, where he had lived and where the lawsuit was heard, Josephson said.

"This is a one-of-a-kind, this is an aberration," he said. "If I had tried this case in Houston, where I live, I think we would have won it 19 out of 20 times."

Josephson said that Judge Alex Gabert, who oversaw the suit, should have dismissed the case before it reached a jury because lawyers for Garza's family had no scientific evidence that Vioxx had caused Garza's heart attack.

"There really isn't any good science to indicate that Vioxx can cause a heart attack in less than 30 days," Josephson said. "It shouldn't have been submitted to the jury."

In addition to his heart attack in 1981, Garza underwent a quadruple bypass in 1985, and was a smoker who was also overweight and had high blood pressure.

Garza's family claimed that he had taken Vioxx for 25 days before his heart attack, although medical records confirmed only seven days of use.

Escobedo said that Vioxx was especially dangerous to Garza because of his other risk factors and that he should never have been prescribed the drug.

The verdict highlights the risks that Merck faces as the number of lawsuits over Vioxx continues to grow. Shares of Merck fell about 1 percent after the verdict was announced on Friday, and closed down US$0.26 at US$34.74.