Vioxx now 1:1

image from not liable in second Vioxx case – Nov. 3, 2005

The jury found that Merck did not fail to warn consumers about the safety of Vioxx, was not guilty of fraud, did not misrepresent the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx while marketing it to physicians, and did not conceal information about the drug.

“Merck is satisfied with the jury verdict,” said Kenneth Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel for Merck. “There will be other Vioxx trials and we will vigorously defend them one by one over the coming years.”

It’s a “Win” in that Merck isn’t out millions, just several hundreds of thousands for the defense. We should start a pool for the date the last filed case is settled or dismissed. I’m guessing May 2011.


  1. I hope you lose the pool, but maybe, just maybe, this will dampen the enthusiasm for direct-to-consumer advertising and keep the drug reps from being so rosy about every new drug.

  2. Greg, thanks for the comments. And, I hope I lose the pool, too.

  3. Curious JD says:

    Actually, Merck isn’t out anything. Unless it is self-insured, it has been paying insurance for this for decades. The insurance would cover the cost of legal defense. In fact, there are probably several insurers since it was probably sold on the secondary insurance market (reinsurance).

  4. Which assumes, of course, that insurance is free, and that the companies who provide it grow their own money on trees.