After a $51 million verdict by the jury in the Gerald Barnett case, Judge Eldon Fallon has ordered a new trial after accepting the argument by Merck that the compensation was too high. Mr. Barnett was a retired FBI agent, and while the Judge has agreed with the finding of the jury that Merck is liable for taking as many as 10 years of his life, he would not have made that kind of money.

In other words, Merck is still guilty, but the new trial will merely focus on what is a more reasonable compensation for Gerald Barnett. It may be a small victory for the company, but Merck is still facing many legal challenges.

Earlier today Gerald Barnett was awarded as much as $51 million by a jury for the suffering (he had multiple bypass surgeries) he went through after taking Vioxx. Of course, Merck has responded by promising to appeal.

But that is not all. Remember Mike Humeston? He is a decorated Vietnam veteran who lost his case last year. Judge Carol Higbee of the New Jersey state court ruled today that he deserves a new trial considering that fact that Merck has retracted its claims about the safety of Vioxx. Additionally, Merck has admitted that Vioxx can be equally dangerous to short term users.

Since the courts are swamped with cases - and more are expected to be filed before the September 30th deadline approaches - it is likely that the Humeston lawsuit retrial will begin in 2007.

When two Vioxx victims in a row - Stewart Grossberg and Elaine Doherty - lost their lawsuits against Merck, other victims started to wonder if that was part of a trend. Today's news that Merck should pay at least $51 million to another victim - Gerald Barnett - shows that not all cases are alike and if an arthritis patient has been genuinely hurt by the recalled painkiller and has no other major illnesses (a weakness that has been exploited by Merck), they have a very strong chance to prove that their heart attack or stroke was due to heavily marketed painkiller.

In a big victory for millions of people who took Vioxx, a jury has ruled that not only should Merck pay damages to Mr. Barnett (who had several bypass surgeries after taking the drug) but also held it responsible for knowingly marketing a dangerous drug.

And if you were expecting a word of apology from the company, forget it. In a statement released today, the company is blaming the jury and is vowing to appeal. Merck is already buried under thousands of lawsuits and the number is expected to rise as the deadline of September 30, 2006 to file lawsuits nears.

Stewart Grossberg loses Vioxx lawsuit

After Elaine Doherty lost her bid to expose Merck's role in heart attacks and strokes caused by Vioxx, another victim, Stewart Grossberg, also lost his case. Earlier it was feared that merely short term users of the painkiller were at a disadvantage but these two cases show that Americans that are in poor health due to other reasons (like obesity) may have a hard time convincing juries.

Like Frederick Mike Humeston, Thomas Cona, and Richard “Dicky” Irvin (deceased, but the lawsuit brought by his wife Evelyn Irvin Plunkett), Northridge, California resident Stewart Grossberg also failed in his efforts to be compensated by Merck, which aggressively marketed the painkiller Vioxx and deliberately hid its dangers. As many as 60,000 Americans are dead after taking the drug and as many as 16,000 lawsuits are pending.

In the Stewart Grossberg case, he failed in his efforts to show a solid link between Vioxx and his heart attack because of his pre-existing heart and cholesterol problems. The drug was most often prescribed to patients with arthritis pain who also happen to be older and more likely to suffer from other conditions like diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and other diseases that may also cause a heart attack.

Most analysts believed that Grossberg's case was weak and now attorneys are eagerly awaiting the outcome of another lawsuit by Gerald Barnett, an ex-FBI agent, who was more physically fit but suffered a heart attack and needed a five-way bypass operation.