A state court jury in New Jersey awarded punitive damages to a New Jersey resident who claimed that his long-term use of Vioxx contributed to his heart attack. Merck & Co., Inc. said it would appeal the punitive verdict, as well as Wednesday's split verdict awarding compensatory damages to one of two long-term users of Vioxx.

Notwithstanding jury's award, the company said it is pleased that the jury found Vioxx was not a substantial contributing factor in the heart attack of Thomas Cona, who had claimed he took the medicine for more than 18 months, and thereby rejected Cona's failure to warn claim.

Testimony during the trial showed that both plaintiffs, Thomas Cona and John McDarby, had several factors that increased their risk or contributed to their heart attacks.

"We continue to believe that the heart attacks in both these cases were caused by the pre-existing medical conditions of these two men, and not Vioxx," added Harrell. "Proving that Vioxx was a substantial contributing factor for someone's heart attack is an important element in these lawsuits."

Merck also said it will appeal those portions of the verdict that found the company violated the state consumer statute with respect to both plaintiffs.

"Merck's actions were proper and did not, in any way, call for this award as defined by New Jersey law," Chuck Harrell of Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, a member of Merck's defence team said adding, "The evidence was clear that we provided the US Food and Drug Administration with the information about Vioxx that we were required to provide. And, under New Jersey law, that means punitive damages should not have been awarded."

"The jury heard irrelevant and prejudicial information from the plaintiffs' attorneys about Merck and an appeal will be our next step," said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. "The evidence is that Merck acted ethically and in a responsible manner - from researching Vioxx prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost 10,000 patients - to monitoring and studying the medicine while it was on the market - to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did."

In the two-plaintiff case, Cona alleged he took Vioxx for approximately 22 months prior to June 9, 2003, when he suffered a heart attack at the age of 57. McDarby suffered a heart attack at the age of 75. McDarby was originally admitted to the hospital on April 15, 2004, for a broken hip following a fall at home.

Outside of the split verdict in this case, Merck has only lost one case. In February, jurors in the first federal case, Plunkett v. Merck, rejected claims that Vioxx caused the heart attack of a Florida man. In November, jurors in New Jersey ruled in favour of Merck in Humeston v. Merck, finding that the company acted responsibly in providing information to the medical community. Merck intends to appeal last August's plaintiff verdict in a Texas state court in Ernst v. Merck, which is the only case it had previously lost, stated a company release.