Dear Merck Employees:



Today, a state court jury in New Jersey awarded punitive damages to a New Jersey resident who claimed that his long-term use of VIOXX contributed to his heart attack. We will appeal today’s punitive verdict and Wednesday’s split verdict awarding compensatory damages to one of two long-term users of VIOXX and those portions of the verdict that found the Company violated the state consumer fraud statute with respect to both plaintiffs.



We are disappointed with this verdict because Merck’s actions were proper and did not, in any way, call for this award as defined by New Jersey Law. The evidence was clear that we provided the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with the information about VIOXX that we were required to provide. And, under New Jersey law, that means punitive damages should not have been awarded.



The jury heard irrelevant and prejudicial information from the plaintiffs’ attorneys about Merck. The evidence is that Merck acted ethically and in a responsible manner – from researching VIOXX prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost 10,000 patients – to monitoring and studying the medicine while it was on the market – to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did.



Notwithstanding today’s award, we are pleased that the jury found VIOXX was not a substantial contributing factor in the heart attack of Thomas Cona, who had claimed he took the medicine for more than 18 months, and thereby rejected Mr. Cona’s failure to warn claim.



We have long-stated that there is no reliable scientific evidence showing that short-term use of VIOXX causes heart attacks, and now, this jury’s split verdict shows that even those who allege long-term use will have a difficult legal and scientific burden to overcome. We continue to believe that the heart attacks in both of these cases were caused by the pre-existing medical conditions of these two men, and not VIOXX. Testimony during the trial showed that both plaintiffs had several factors that increased their risk or contributed to their hear attacks. Proving that VIOXX was a substantial contributing factor for someone’s heart attack is an important element in these lawsuits.



The split verdict in this case reaffirms our strategy of reviewing and defending each case individually – which is what we have done from the start. We are in this for the long term and remain strongly committed to that strategy.



Moving forward, we will continue to keep you updated on significant developments with regard to VIOXX litigation. In the meantime, please visit the VIOXX Information Center for the most up-to-date information on the litigation and other matters at: http://pubaff.merck.com/vioxx/.



Sincerely,



Ken Frazier

Senior Vice President and General Counsel

Associated Press
Update 8: Jury Awards Vioxx Plaintiff $9M in Damages
04.11.2006, 10:21 AM

A jury awarded $9 million in punitive damages on Tuesday to a man who blamed his heart attack on Vioxx, finding that manufacturer Merck & Co. failed to warn about the risks of its arthritis drug and misrepresented the risks to physicians.

The damages are in addition to $4.5 million already awarded to John McDarby, 77, of Park Ridge, who suffered a heart attack after four years on Vioxx, a painkiller taken by 20 million Americans before being pulled off the market.

In its only other loss in a Vioxx case, Merck was ordered last August to pay $253 million to the widow of a man who died after taking the drug for a short time. That amount will be reduced because the law in Texas, where the case was heard, limits punitive damages.