Jury awards widow $253M in Vioxx verdict
Compliance Monitor, August 24, 2005
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
A Texas jury found Friday that the painkiller Vioxx contributed to the death of Robert Ernst, and awarded his widow $253 million.
"We knew and could see what the truth was," Robert Ernst's widow Carol Ernst told reporters following the verdict, according to Reuters.
The case was the first of more than 4,200 filed claiming Vioxx manufacturer Merck & Co. knew about risks associated with Vioxx years before the company acted on the information.
The drug manufacturer plans to appeal the decision, said Merck attorney Jonathan Skidmore.
"There is no reliable scientific evidence that shows Vioxx causes cardiac arrhythmia, which an autopsy showed was the cause of Mr. Ernst's death," Skidmore said, according to Reuters.
Merck's final award will likely be sharply reduced under a Texas law that limits punitive damages, according to Reuters.
Still, the verdict sent Merck stocks plummeting, losing 7.7% of market value, or $5.2 billion Friday, reported the Associated Press.
Merck pulled Vioxx from the market last year, following a study that found the painkiller increases heart attacks and strokes if taken for 18 months.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
-
Strategies for Health Care Compliance
News and real-life examples to increase the effectiveness of your compliance program. Strategies for Health Care Compliance...
-
Compliance Monitor
This HTML e-mail newsletter delivers news on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse, as well as recent documents and targets...
-
Medicare Weekly Update
Each issue of Medicare Weekly Update includes the latest CMS proposed and final rules, CMS manual revisions, and...
-
Medicare Update for Physician Services
Medicare Update for Physician Services is a free, monthly e-zine that delivers news and information to help physician...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched