- Janice Hopkins Tanne
- New York
Merck will appeal against the decision that a New Jersey state court jury made on 12 March to award compensatory and punitive damages of $47.5m (£24.4m; €35.7m) to an Idaho man, Frederick Humeston, and his wife Mary, for a heart attack he had in 2001, when he was 56.
The damages, awarded after the retrial of an earlier case that Mr Humeston lost, were $18m to Mr Humeston, $2m to his wife, and $27.5 in punitive damages. The jury decided that Merck was negligent in not warning Mr Humeston of the risk of taking rofecoxib (Vioxx).
Merck voluntarily withdrew rofecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor, from the market on 30 September 2004 because it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes (BMJ 2005;329:816).
Merck faces more than 27 000 …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Does iron deficiency without anaemia cause fatigue and what is the reason behind it?
Published 26 May 2012
Re: Histology of Pilar Cysts - a counsel of perfection?
Published 26 May 2012
Re: David Southall: anatomy of a wrecked career
Published 26 May 2012
Re: The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality
Published 26 May 2012
Re: Five years after baby Peter
Published 26 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27