Merck won a crucial legal victory on Thursday, when jurors decided that the drugmaker's Vioxx painkiller, the subject of at least 16,000 product liability lawsuits, didn't cause a 68-year-old woman's heart attack. The case was the first in which jurors considered whether Merck failed to warn patients about the drug's cardiac risks, rather than just doctors as in prior trials. The jury also found that Merck did not violate New Jersey's consumer fraud law.
July 14, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Merck & Co. won a crucial legal victory on Thursday, when jurors decided that the drugmaker’s Vioxx painkiller, now the subject of at least 16,000 product liability lawsuits, did not cause a 68-year-old woman’s heart attack.
The case was the first in which jurors considered whether Merck failed to warn patients about the drug’s cardiac risks, rather than just doctors as in prior trials.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
