An L.A. jury Wednesday cleared Merck of liability in the case of a 71-year-old man who claimed his heart ailments were caused by the drug maker's Vioxx painkiller. The jury determined Merck was not negligent, did not conceal information and was not responsible for Stewart Grossberg's heart problems. One law professor predicts more legal victories ahead for Merck, saying, "Juries are very receptive to the Merck argument that the drug isn't the problem with these older patients, it's their own illnesses."
August 03, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A California jury on Wednesday cleared pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. of liability in the case of an elderly man who claimed his heart ailments were caused by the drug maker’s once-popular painkiller Vioxx.
After deliberating several hours in California’s first trial over the painkiller, the 12-person jury determined that Merck was not negligent, did not conceal information and that the drug did not cause Stewart Grossberg’s health problems.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers and financiers for the real estate healthcare event of the year!
This event shines a spotlight on how individuals and firms are changing the investment advisory industry where it matters most.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
We are seeking two attorneys with a minimum of two to three years of experience to join our prominent and thriving education law practice in...
Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the New York office for a Real Estate Litigation Associate with three to six years of commerci...
Downtown NY property and casualty defense law firm seeks a Litigation Associate with 3+ years' experience to become a part of our team! You ...
