ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey - A jury has found Merck & Co. failed to warn Vioxx users of the drug's heart risks and ordered it to pay a 77-year-old plaintiff at least US$4.5 million ($7.4 million) today.
The decision raises questions about the company's future defence of thousands of lawsuitsfiled over the medicine.
The jury determined that the company knew or should have known that its pain drug increased the risk of heart attacks and other cardiovascular events, but didn't adequately warn users or their doctors.
In a split decision after about 14 hours of deliberation, the jury said Vioxx had been a substantial contributing cause of a heart attack suffered by 77-year-old plaintiff John McDarby but determined that the drug was not a significant cause of a heart attack suffered by a second plaintiff, Thomas Cona.
Both men blamed the drug for their attacks.
Merck was also found to have misrepresented and concealed the heart risks of Vioxx when marketing the drug to doctors. However, the jury found that Merck did not commit consumer fraud in its efforts to sell the drug. Jurors awarded US$4.5 million in compensatory damages to McDarby but nothing to Cona.
Shares of the drugmaker fell 3 per cent in after-hours trade.
The trial now moves into the punitive phase in the case of McDarby. Jurors will determine on Thursday whether McDarby is entitled to punitive damages on top of the compensatory damages he was awarded. Punitive damages are capped at five times the amount set for compensatory damages under New Jersey state law.
Former Merck chief executive Raymond Gilmartin will appear at Thursday's hearing to explain the company's actions over Vioxx, said Merck spokesman Kent Jarrell.
Rob Gordon, an attorney for McDarby, predicted there would be more Vioxx cases following the jury's award to McDarby, who had a series of health problems including diabetes and heart disease that his attorneys said were exacerbated by Vioxx.
"I think there is going to be a significant increase in the number of filings against Merck," Gordon told reporters after the verdict.
Merck attorney Chuck Harrell said the company was "disappointed" by the split decision.
