A federal court jury in Houston, Texas failed to reach a unanimous verdict in Plunkett v. Merck and is prepared for a retrial, if that becomes necessary.
"We presented evidence that there is no medical or scientific evidence showing short-term use of VIOXX increases the risk of heart attack and no evidence that it contributed in any way to the unfortunate death of Richard Irvin," said Philip Beck, of the law firm of Bartlit Beck, Merck's lead trial lawyer in the case.
"Irvin only took VIOXX for less than a month. He suffered multiple long-standing risk factors for a heart attack including partially clogged arteries. We believe that Irvin would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking VIOXX or not," added Beck.
"If a retrial is scheduled we will be right back with the same facts. The VIOXX litigation will go on for years. We have the resources and the resolve to address these cases, one by one, in a reasonable and responsible manner," said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck.
The lawsuit was originally filed in Palm Beach County, Florida in May 2003 by Irvin's surviving spouse, Evelyn Irvin Plunkett. The case was re-filed in the federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) as case number 05-4046 in 2005, informs a company release.
The MDL is based in federal court in New Orleans; the Plunkett case was tried in Houston because of the effects of Hurricane Katrina. The judge presiding over the MDL has said that he plans to schedule three additional trials on a monthly basis, starting in February 2006. Merck is represented in the Plunkett case by Philip Beck and Tarek Ismail of Bartlit Beck of Chicago.