Gratified that the Texas appeals court correctly found that VIOXX did not cause Mr.Death and reversed the previous decision for the plaintiff in the first VIOXX case to go to trial.Addition, the New Jersey court correctly reversed the awards of punitive damage and consumer fraud.Decisions overturn almost US$40 million of damages and attorneys fees previously awarded to plaintiffs at trial," said Bruce Kuhlik, executive vice president and general counsel of Merck & Co."We intend to seek further review of the portion of the award that remains standing after the New Jersey decision.Continue to believe Merck acted responsibly.The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that VIOXX did not cause the death of Mr.The jury's verdict and rendered a judgment in favor of Merck.Adele Hedges, writing for a unanimous panel, said in the ruling, "we find no evidence that Ernst suffered a thrombotic cardiovascular event, i.A myocardial infarction triggered by a blood clot.Appellee failed to show that ingestion of VIOXX caused her husband's death.Original verdict on Aug.2005 included US$24,450,000 inpensatory damages and US$229,000,000 in punitive damages for a total of US$253,425,000 against Merck.June 23, 2006, based on relevant Texas law which limits the amount of punitive damages, the punitive damage verdict of US$229,000,000 was reduced to US$1,650,000.In the Cona and McDarby cases, the New Jersey Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, overturned the punitive damage award as well as the consumer fraud award, and let stand thepensatory damages for personal injury to Mr.In reversing the consumer fraud verdict, the court also rejected the attorneys fees granted to the plaintiffs' attorneys.The court overturned more than US$13 million in damages and attorneys fees.The trial, which resulted in a partial victory for Merck, thepany presented evidence that both of the heart attacks were caused, not by VIOXX, but by the pre-existing medical conditions of the two men.The jury found that VIOXX did not cause Mr.It found in favor of Mr.Awarding him bothpensatory and punitive damages.Awarded both men the out of pocket costs associated with their purchases of VIOXX under the consumer fraud statute.Decision overturns that award as well.Litigation Merck has won the large majority of cases that have gone to trial and thousands of lawsuits have been dismissed.The 18 plaintiffs whose cases went to trial, only three have outstanding product liability judgments against Merck.Entered into an agreement to resolve state and federal myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke claims filed or tolled by Nov.2007.Settlement program is progressing in a satisfactory manner.Of the large number of enrollments received so far, Merck is confident that the number of verified enrollments will exceed the thresholds that will obligate thepany to pay US$4.Into a resolution fund.Ernst trial, which led to a verdict on Aug.2005, Merck was represented by Gerry Lowry of Fulbright & Jaworkski, L.Houston and David C.Of Williams & Connolly, L.Of Washington D.Merck's appellate counsel are Katherine D.Of Fulbright & Jaworski L.In Houston and Charles C.Of O'Melveny & Myers LLP in Los Angeles.Counsel in the Cona and McDarby cases are Douglas S.Of Lowenstein, Sandler LLP and Charles C.Of O'Melveny & Myers LLP in Los Angeles.This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.Are based on management's current expectations and involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the statements.Forward-looking statements may include statements regarding product development, product potential or financial performance.Forward-looking statement can be guaranteed and actual results may differ materially from those projected.Undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.Statements in this press release should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect Merck's business, particularly those mentioned in the risk factors and cautionary statements in Item 1A of Merck's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec.2007, and in any risk factors or cautionary statements contained in thepany's periodic reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K, which thepany incorporates by reference.Related News Items > > > Source: Merck Issuer of this News Release is solely responsible for its content.Please address inquiries directly to the issuingpany.Related Market Research Rmended Reports > > > > > > > > > Copyright 1998-2008 The Healthcare Sales & Marketing Network.Read more [gastrointestinal cancer] targeting vascular endothelial growth factor in advanced carcinoid tumor: a random assignment phase ii study of depot octreotide with bevacizumab and pegylated interferon alfa-2b
Get more Anomalous effects of albuterol and other sympathomimetics in the guinea pig
