Plaintiff takes stand in Vioxx lawsuit

Under brief questioning by his both his attorney and counsel for defendant Merck & Co., Stewart Grossberg, 71, told jurors he began taking Vioxx in 1999 to manage joint pain in his knees, hands and elsewhere caused by osteoarthritis.

"I used Vioxx for a number of years,” Grossberg said, adding he only took the painkiller "as needed,” not everyday.

One such pain flare-up occurred in August 2001, prompting Grossberg to take Vioxx. A few weeks later, he suffered a heart attack, which he said forced him to take a break from his job as a construction site supervisor.

"I went back to work ... but after a period of time, it caught up,” Grossberg told jurors. "I couldn’t (work) as much.”

Merck & Co. attorney Ralph Campillo focused on determining whether Grossberg followed his doctor’s guidelines for taking prescribed medications; Grossberg said yes. Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck & Co. claims there is no proof Vioxx caused Grossberg’s heart ailments.

The company maintains Grossberg had pre-existing health factors that led to his heart problems, including a history of heart disease in his family, elevated cholesterol, poor diet and exercise habits and years spent as a smoker.

On Wednesday, attorney Thomas Girardi sought to paint a different picture. He asked Grossberg to tell jurors how he worked on construction sites as a foreman for several decades, underscoring that he led an active life, rather than spending years sitting behind a desk.

Grossberg told the panel that despite smoking until his mid-30s, he had always been in good health. Still, by the time he reached his mid-60s, Grossberg developed osteoarthritis.

Earlier, his primary physician, Dr. Richard Shaw, testified he prescribed Grossberg several painkillers over the years and then Vioxx. Shaw told jurors that "dozens” of sales representatives for Merck failed to mention the painkiller carried significant risks of heart attack and stroke.

But Merck attorney Terek Ismail brought up two letters sent by Merck to Shaw — one as early as 2000 — telling him of a Vioxx study that showed an increased risk of heart attack.

Still, Shaw continued to prescribe Vioxx to Grossberg, who in November 2004 suffered angina, or chest pains, and had to undergo a second stent placement.

Shaw testified he continued to prescribe the painkiller because the wording in one of the letters suggested the company needed to do more testing.

Grossberg’s case targeting Vioxx is the eighth to go to trial nationwide. Another trial is ongoing in Atlantic City, N.J.

The California case is one of more than 13,000 such claims against Merck nationwide. Some 2,000 of the lawsuits were filed in California and consolidated in Los Angeles Superior Court by Judge Victoria G. Chaney.

———

On the Net:

http://www.merck.com<