Grossberg v. Merck

VERDICT

Trial
06/27/06 – 08/02/06

Summary

Stewart Grossberg used the pain reliever Vioxx for several years and suffered a heart attack. The plaintiff asserted that Merck put Vioxx on the market with inadequate testing, and Merck concealed from doctors Merck's knowledge that Vioxx, a Cox-2 inhibitor, would cause adverse vascular events, such as strokes and heart attacks.

The defense argued that heart disease is exceptionally common, and that Vioxx played no role in the plaintiff's heart attack. Instead, the plaintiff had many risk factors for heart disease, including his age, family history, lack of exercise, and high cholesterol.

According to the defense, the very people that the plaintiffs accuse of covering up the truth about Vioxx actually took the medicines themselves, because they believed it was safe.

The jury ruled for the defendant, finding that Merck was not negligent, did not fail to warn of a substantial danger, did not make a negligent misrepresentation, and did not intentionally fail to disclose an important fact to the plaintiff's doctor.

Outcome

Found for the Defense

Case Information
Attorneys
Witnesses
Plaintiff
Defense
Judge
Victoria Chaney
Jurisdiction
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
Court
Central Civil West Courthouse
Case Number
BC327729
Industry
Pharmaceutical
Practice Area
Products Liability, Pharmaceuticals, Tort Law, Toxic Torts
Plaintiff
Grossberg, Stewart
Defense
Merck & Co
Expert Witnesses
Lay Witnesses

Sessions

JUN
27
JUN
28
JUN
29
JUL
5
JUL
6
JUL
7
JUL
11
JUL
12
JUL
13
JUL
14
JUL
18
JUL
19
JUL
20
JUL
21
JUL
25
JUL
26
JUL
27
AUG
1
AUG
2

AudioCaseFiles

Exclusive audio opinions to enhance your law school experience

AudioCaseFiles

Essentials

The most important and informative moments of each trial

Essentials

Training Libraries

Trial Advocacy, Rules of Evidence and Appellate Advocacy

Training

  • Follow Us