Merck & Co., Inc., a global research-driven pharmaceutical company, announced that it is pleased that a federal court jury in New Orleans returned a defence verdict in Plunkett v. Merck by rejecting a claim that short-term use of Vioxx played a role in the 2001 death of a Florida man.

"The jury's decision confirms that there is no medical or scientific evidence showing short-term use of Vioxx increases the risk of heart attack and 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. Irvin would have suffered a heart attack when he did, whether he was taking Vioxx or not."

"This is a satisfying jury verdict for Merck," said Kenneth C Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. "Juries in federal and state courts have now rejected unfounded theories about short-term use of Vioxx and have decided the company acted responsibly in properly disclosing data to the FDA and the medical community."

The lawsuit was originally filed in Palm Beach County, Florida on May 14, 2003, by Irvin's surviving spouse, Evelyn Irvin Plunkett. The case was re-filed in the MultiDistrict Litigation as case number 05-4046 in 2005.

"Like all Vioxx cases, this one was about individual causation and that's why we are dealing with these cases one by one as they come to trial," said Frazier. "The fact remains that heart attacks are a major cause of death in the United States and have multiple causes. It will be difficult for plaintiffs to prove that Vioxx was the cause of any individual's heart attack."

Merck is represented in the Plunkett case by Philip Beck and Tarek Ismail of Bartlit Beck of Chicago.