Reversing the verdict, the appeals court found that plaintiffs had not proved that Vioxx caused Mr.Death.Appeals court in New Jersey sharply reduced a verdict in another Vioxx case.Court ruled that the jury should not have been allowed to award punitive damages against Merck or to find that Merck hadmitted consumer fraud.Damages of $4.Were permitted, the court said.On Thursday leave lawyers for plaintiffs with just three victories, all with relatively small awards, in the nearly 20 Vioxx cases that have reached juries.Lanier, a plaintiffs' lawyer who was involved in both cases decided Thursday, criticized the decisions and promised appeals.Plaintiffs face an uphill battle.General counsel, said thepany was pleased with the rulings.In the judges and the fairness of the process has been well placed," he said.May further discourage lawyers from pursuing lawsuits against drug makers.Plaintiffs' lawyers are nervously awaiting a ruling in a case that will be heard this fall and could bar most lawsuits againstpanies for injuries said to be caused by prescription medicines approved by the .According to the government's and drug industry's argument in the Supreme Court case, the F.Not individual juries, should be responsible for evaluating the risks and benefits of a drug.Short run, Thursday's rulings will make little difference either to Merck or plaintiffs' lawyers, since the two sides have already agreed to a $4.Settlement that will largely end the Vioxx litigation.Covers about 50,000 people who have sued Merck claiming that they or their family members had heart attacks or strokes after taking Vioxx.A June 30 deadline to agree to the settlement, which will result in an average payment of roughly $100,000 a plaintiff before legal fees, or to opt out and continue their lawsuits.Opt out of the settlement if not enough plaintiffs agree to it.Mr.Said on Thursday that about 95 percent of eligible plaintiffs had agreed to the deal and that thepany was nearly certain it will go forward.A former health care investment analyst and now the managing partner of Krensavage Partners, a health care fund, said that the rulings released Thursday made him doubt the wisdom of Merck's decision last November to settle the lawsuits."Today's decisions verify Merck's initial strategy of fighting every case and raises questions about the wisdom of settling," Mr. Mr.General counsel, said thepany was satisfied that it had made the right decision in settling.And Benjamin Zipursky, a professor at Fordham Law School who has closely followed the Vioxx litigation, said Thursday's rulings did not change his opinion that Merck had been right to settle the cases.The appeals court rulings are not as positive for Merck as they may first appear, Mr.Said.Appeals court overturned the verdict on narrow factual grounds, he said, while the New Jersey court did allow for a damages award."A $4.Damages award for the plaintiff was affirmed," Mr.Said.Is a huge vindication of the plaintiff.26 cents on Thursday, closing at $38.In the Texas case, three appeals court judges reversed the verdict of a jury, throwing out the views of the plaintiffs' experts.New Jersey case, the appeals court allowed the basicpensatory damages verdict to stand, but found that the F.Pre-emption power barred the jury from awarding punitive damages.Ruled plaintiffs should not have been allowed to allege consumer fraud.TIPS To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name.New window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.COVERAGE (April 16, 2008) (February 8, 2008) (November 10, 2007) (September 7, 2007) RELATED SEARCHES Also in Real Estate: Advertisements Which movies do the Critics rmend?Read more Managing hypertension in diabetic patients ГўВЂВ" focus on trandolapril/verapamil combination
Get more Chemotherapy and tamoxifen independently reduce risk of second breast cancer
