It would be tough to claim that the Texas jury's decision in favor of the woman who claimed her husband was killed by rofecoxib (Vioxx) reflected medical truth. But the fact that Robert Ernst probably didn't die of a heart attack—much less one that was caused by Vioxx—was beside the point. With its $253 million judgment against Merck & Co. Inc. (reduced to $26.1 million under Texas law), the jury "sent a message" about what it perceived as the pharmaceutical industry's culture of greed.
The industry is unlikely to hear that message: its executives simply don't believe it. Too often we've heard them dismiss the broader importance of the jury's message by blaming Merck's lawyers for failing to win on the facts. And the lawyers were probably guilty as charged
Read the full article – start your free trial today!
Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on In Vivo for daily insights
- Start your 7-day free trial
- Explore trusted news, analysis, and insights
- Access comprehensive global coverage
- Enjoy instant access – no credit card required
Already a subscriber?