Merck Wins Federal VIOXX(R) Product Liability Case: Smith v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Merck & Co., Inc. today said it is pleased that a federal court jury in New Orleans found in favor of Merck, rejecting a claim that VIOXX caused the 2003 heart attack of a Kentucky man. In the case, Robert Garry Smith took VIOXX for approximately four months before his heart attack. "The jury’s decision confirms that Merck acted responsibly and that VIOXX was not the cause of Mr. Smith’s heart attack,” said Philip Beck, of the law firm of Bartlit Beck, Merck’s lead trial lawyer in the case, Smith v. Merck. "Mr. Smith had multiple risk factors for a heart attack including elevated blood pressure, a family history of cardiac problems, coronary artery disease and he was considered medically obese," Mr. Beck said. "Finally, Mr. Smith's strenuous physical activity on the day of his heart attack – shoveling snow, in cold temperatures, for almost an hour – is a well-known trigger for such events. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith would have suffered a heart attack whether he was taking VIOXX or not.” Merck has now won two out of three federal VIOXX cases to go to trial. "This is a satisfying verdict for Merck,” said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. "Juries across the country, in both state and federal courts, have determined that the Company acted responsibly in properly disclosing data to the medical community.” U.S. District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana, who is overseeing all of the federal court VIOXX litigation, presided over the case. The lawsuit was filed in the Multi-District Litigation as case number 05-04379 in 2005. "As in all VIOXX cases, the individual facts were important which is why we are dealing with these cases one by one,” said Mr. Frazier. "The fact is that heart attacks are, unfortunately, a leading cause of death in the United States and have multiple causes.” Merck was represented in the Smith case by Philip Beck, Andrew Goldman and Carrie Jablonski of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP of Chicago. Bartlit Beck was also the lead counsel in the two previous federal VIOXX cases. This is the 10th case that has gone to trial. Last month, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Gerald Barnett, who claimed his long-term use of VIOXX caused his heart attack. The damages portion of the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was recently overturned by Judge Fallon and the company is seeking a new trial on all issues. Earlier in August, Merck won a case brought by Stewart Grossberg, a California man who unsuccessfully claimed his intermittent use of VIOXX caused his heart attack. In July, Merck won a case brought by Elaine Doherty, a New Jersey woman who claimed her heart attack was caused by her nearly three years of VIOXX use. Prior to that, in April, a New Jersey jury rendered a split verdict in a case involving two plaintiffs. The jurors rejected a claim by Thomas Cona that VIOXX contributed to his heart attack, and found in favor of John McDarby. Merck plans to appeal the portions of the verdict that it lost. In February, Merck won the first federal case in New Orleans when jurors in Plunkett v. Merck rejected claims that VIOXX caused the heart attack of a Florida man. In November 2005, jurors in New Jersey ruled in favor of Merck, in Humeston v. Merck, the first N.J. case. The court has since set aside that jury’s verdict and Merck has announced its intent to appeal the court’s ruling. Finally, Merck has appealed last August’s plaintiff’s verdict in a Texas state court in Ernst v. Merck, and plans to appeal April’s pending plaintiff’s verdict in a Texas state court in Garza v. Merck. About Merck Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company dedicated to putting patients first. Established in 1891, Merck currently discovers, develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines to address unmet medical needs. The Company devotes extensive efforts to increase access to medicines through far-reaching programs that not only donate Merck medicines but help deliver them to the people who need them. Merck also publishes unbiased health information as a not-for-profit service. For more information, visit www.merck.com. Forward-Looking Statement This press release contains "forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management's current expectations and involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the statements. The forward-looking statements may include statements regarding product development, product potential or financial performance. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual results may differ materially from those projected. Merck undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Forward-looking statements in this press release should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect Merck's business, particularly those mentioned in the cautionary statements in Item 1 of Merck's Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, and in its periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, which the Company incorporates by reference.