MSD: Vioxx plaintiffs failed to prove cases

Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD) has reported that the plaintiffs in the recent product liability case for its osteoarthritis treatment Vioxx had failed to prove their case at a recent trial.

This statement follows the decision of a state court judge in Los Angeles to declare two mistrials, as a jury failed to return verdicts in the cases in question. It had been claimed by the plaintiffs that treatment with Vioxx had played a role in their suffering a heart attack.

Thomas Yoo, of Reed Smith and member of the defence team, said: “Both plaintiffs failed to prove their case. The evidence showed [MSD] acted responsibly in providing information to the medical, scientific and regulatory communities.”

He added that the firm was prepared to defend itself against similar accusations in future if such cases are tried again.

MSD commented that all lawsuits involving Vioxx were based in different individual circumstances and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

In 2005, a mistrial was ruled in the first federal trial in New Orleans, with a jury finding in favour of MSD in a retrial.

Last December, MSD announced that a state court in Alabama ruled in favour of the company regarding the case of a man claiming that Vioxx had caused his heart attack in 2001.