- The Washington Times - Friday, February 17, 2006

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal jury handed Merck & Co. a major victory when it cleared the drug maker of any responsibility in the death of a 53-year-old Florida man who had a heart attack after taking its once popular painkiller Vioxx for less than a month.

This was the second court victory for Merck, and the first in a federal court. The company had argued in this case that plaintiff lawyers never proved any link between Vioxx and the heart attack Richard “Dickie” Irvin suffered in 2001. Merck’s lawyers contended Mr. Irvin’s age, sex and diet all put him at risk for heart attacks.

It was also the second time jurors heard the case brought by Mr. Irvin’s family. In Houston, where the case was heard in November and December because of damage from Hurricane Katrina, jurors were unable to reach a verdict. Merck won a state case in New Jersey last year but lost one in Texas.

Mr. Irvin’s widow, Evelyn Irvin Plunkett; the youngest of their three daughters, Ashley Irvin; and their only son, Richard Irvin III, all testified that Mr. Irvin’s health had been excellent until his heart attack.

Mr. Irvin took Vioxx for back pain, but never saw a doctor about it. Instead, the resident of St. Augustine, Fla., called his son-in-law, an emergency room physician who lived in another city. He hadn’t been able to keep down the first two painkillers Dr. Richard Schirmer prescribed; after he tried a sample given to him by an acquaintance, he asked Dr. Schirmer for Vioxx.

Dr. Schirmer testified that if the label had included a warning about heart attack risk, he wouldn’t have prescribed Vioxx for his father-in-law.

Much of the evidence presented by attorneys focused on whether Merck should have added a warning to the label after it learned in early 2000 that patients taking Vioxx in a drug test called VIGOR had five times as many heart attacks as those on naproxen, another painkiller.

Jurors had to decide three questions about whether Merck did something wrong, and whether that action probably contributed to Mr. Irvin’s death: Was Merck negligent? Did it fail to warn Dr. Schirmer about the drug’s potential dangers? Was the drug unreasonably dangerous because of defective design?

They didn’t have to agree that Vioxx definitely caused the heart attack in May 2001, or that it was the only possible cause — only that it is “more likely true than not true” that it was among the causes, U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon told jurors.

“Our burden of proof is to show more likely than not. Fifty-one percent. More likely than not to show his heart attack was caused by Vioxx,” attorney Andy Birchfield told the jury during his closing argument.

He noted epidemiologist Wayne Ray’s testimony that the drug probably was to blame for 54 percent of all heart attacks among people who had them while taking Vioxx.

In Mr. Irvin’s case, he said, that meant a 54 percent chance that the drug was among reasons for the heart attack.

Merck learned of the VIGOR study results in 2000. Had it stopped selling Vioxx or put a warning label on the drug then, he said, Mr. Irvin’s son-in-law, an emergency room physician, would not have prescribed Vioxx for him.

“Did they rein in their massive marketing campaign? … No. They pushed on wide open,” he said. And he quoted the comment of Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist subpoenaed for videotaped testimony.

“He said that was human experimentation,” Mr. Birchfield said.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide