The Ernst v. Merck Jury: On Merck’s Decision to Market Vioxx Despite Knowing About the Cardiovascular Problems

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America ("ATLA"), of which I am a proud member, has compiled selected statements made by some of the jurors who heard the evidence presented during the Ernst v. Merck trial in Texas.  These Vioxx juror quotes provide some insight about what inspired this jury to hand down their massive $253 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the Ernst case on August 19, 2005 in Brazoria County, Texas.

Part One of this series showed how the Ernst jury believed it was sending a message to Merck and Big Pharma as concerns unsafe drug issues, and Vioxx in particular, by means of its verdict.

This second segment of the series will examine how the Ernst jury considered Merck’s decision to market Vioxx despite knowing about the cardiovascular problems associated with their drug. 

Last but not least, Part Three will delve into how the Ernst jury determined that punitive damages were warranted, and how the jurors arrived at the $229 million punitive damages amount.

So, what did members of the Ernst jury have to say about Merck’s decision to keep selling Vioxx despite knowing about the significant number of heart attacks and strokes that had been associated with Vioxx, their blockbuster drug?

• “One of the jurors, 21-year-old Stacy Smith, said she was shocked at evidence that showed the company knew the dangers of Vioxx long before it withdrew the drug. ‘They knew, and they still put it out anyway,’ she said.” [Sunday Express (U.K.), 8/21/05]

• “Several jurors said that company documents showed Merck seemed to care more about profits from the drug than the public’s welfare.  Stacy Smith, 21, said she was swayed by documents written by Merck executives. ‘They knew,’ she said, ‘and they still put [Vioxx] out.’  …  Juror Lorraine Blas, 41, said she reviewed several documents in the jury room and found a particularly damaging Merck e-mail on cardiovascular events and testing dating back years. ‘I felt Merck knew something was going on as early as 1997,’ she said.  Juror Derrick Chizer, a Social Security service representative, said he was irritated that Merck failed to send any executives who were responsible for bringing Vioxx to market to the trial.  ‘Not one bigwig from Merck came down. Not one of them took the time,’ Chizer said. ‘One death in my life would make a difference. Why wouldn’t it make a difference to them?’” [Los Angeles Times, 8/20/05]

• Juror Lorraine Blas: “The evidence there – after reviewing all the evidence in the jury room, I decided from looking at the paperwork they knew the problems this medication was causing and they hid it from us. Rather than telling us the good and the bad, they only told us the good.”  [The Early Show, CBS News Transcripts, 8/20/05]

• “‘Merck did not let us know the full problems of the drug,’ juror Rhonda Wade said. ‘I was shocked.’” [The Dallas Morning News, 8/20/05]

• “’This case certainly opened my eyes,’ said juror Rhonda Wade, a 41-year-old mother of four from nearby Clute, Texas. ‘They ignored an FDA warning letter about their marketing and they didn’t give [regulators] all of the information.’  ‘I will probably never take another pill without totally investigating it, questioning my doctor and pharmacists and reading all the information I can,’ Wade said.”  [Chicago Tribune, 8/20/05]

• Juror Stacy Smith: “The issue, to me, was, did Merck know before they put the drug on the market, and when they did, why didn’t they do something about it immediately?” [World News Tonight, ABC News Transcripts, 8/19/05]

• ‘”’Look at the evidence,’’ said Marsha Robbins, the forewoman, when asked whether the award was excessive.  ‘They knew they had a problem,’’ she said of Merck, the maker of Vioxx. … One factor that swayed the jury, Ms. Blas said, was another look at Merck’s labeling of Vioxx, even after the company began warning doctors that the drug could be linked to ‘cardiovascular events’ like heart attacks and strokes.  ‘In the first label, it didn’t jump out at you that C.V. events were happening,’ Ms. Blas said, referring to a cardio vascular event. ‘You had to dig three levels to see it.’”  [The New York Times, 8/20/05]

Thanks again to ATLA for pulling together this jury information from the Ernst Vioxx trial.  Return here tomorrow to read Part Three of this Texas Vioxx verdict series.

(Posted by: Tom Lamb)