Opening Arguments Heard in New Jersey Vioxx Trial

By Dave Wilson

Published on September 15, 2005

Chris Seeger, the lead plaintiff's attorney, used many of the same arguments put forth in the nation's first Vioxx trial, in which a widowed woman was awarded $253 million by an Angleton, Texas jury. Seeger similarly alleged that the pharmaceutical corporation knew the dangers posed by Vioxx long before notifying the public, alluding to a number of Merck's internal documents.

Diane Sullivan, Merck's lead defense attorney, countered with a very different viewpoint. She contended that the plaintiff's heart attack was due to preexisting lifestyle factors, such as obesity and stress. Sullivan also pointed out that Humeston had only been taking Vioxx for two months prior to his heart attack, and the attorney cited research studies that concluded that the arthritis drug only increased risks after 18 consecutive months of use.

This trial will be followed closely, as the result could indicate how future Vioxx lawsuits might fare. Courtroom observers noted that Seeger appeared lack some of the polish and flair Attorney Mark Lanier displayed in winning the first Vioxx trial. Despite being a Vietnam War hero, Humeston's case may be factually weaker and somewhat less sympathetic than that of Robert Ernst's widow.

Legal analysts also took notice of some changes in Merck's defense strategy. In the opening argument, Ms. Sullivan alone spoke in front of the jury, without using notes. In the first trial, two Merck attorneys took turns speaking to the jury from behind a lectern.

Comment on this article →