A jury in New Jersey thought so. This Times article says so!
Excerpts from a “NY TIMES”story, published April 12, 2006
The jurors did find that Merck had committed consumer fraud against Mr. Cona by not publicizing Vioxx’s potential risks. But because Mr. Cona said he had taken Vioxx for 22 months and yet had only three prescriptions covering seven months, the jurors were not sure that he had taken the drug as long as he said, according to Mr. Kile.
The verdict was the first time a New Jersey jury has awarded punitive damages against a drug company and automatically causes the case to be referred to the state attorney general for a possible criminal investigation of Merck’s conduct. Federal prosecutors have been investigating the company’s marketing of Vioxx.
The verdict is another big victory for Mr. Lanier, who was the winning lawyer in the Texas case. He handled the bulk of the arguments in this trial, including questioning of Raymond V. Gilmartin, Merck’s former chief executive, last Thursday.
In New Jersey a drug company can only be found guilty of consumer fraud if evidence shows that it lied to the FDA.
I’m going to research the federal prosecutors investigation and will be posting about it later.
Tags: lawsuits, Merck, settlement, vioxx
