By
LINDA A. JOHNSON
NEWSDAY
AP Business Writer
June 30, 2005, 6:49 PM EDT
TRENTON, N.J. -- A New Jersey Superior Court judge handling lawsuits over Merck
& Co.'s withdrawn arthritis drug Vioxx questioned
12 attorneys Thursday, trying to determine how The Associated Press obtained a
potentially damaging document. None admitted having provided the document to
the news cooperative.
The document, inadvertently given by Merck to plaintiff lawyers during evidence
gathering in one of the hundreds of Vioxx lawsuits,
indicated Merck scientists were mulling combining Vioxx
with another compound to lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
It appeared to undermine Merck's statements that company officials believed the
drug was safe before they pulled it from the market last September after a
Merck study showed long-term Vioxx use increased
heart attack and stroke risk.
Judge Carol E. Higbee in
The Associated Press reported details in the document on June 22. A copy of the
document was provided to The Associated Press on the condition that its source
not be identified.
Higbee's clerk, who asked not to be identified by
name, said the judge asked plaintiff attorneys whether they or any associates
had seen the document, had disclosed it to the press or knew who had.
Further hearings involving both plaintiff and defense attorneys were scheduled
for Friday and for July 12.
If Higbee can determine who is responsible, the judge
would then hold further proceedings to determine whether to impose sanctions,
find the attorney in contempt of court or pursue some other option, the clerk
said.
During a second Vioxx-related hearing before Higbee Thursday afternoon, attorneys gave oral arguments as
to whether Higbee should grant class-action status
for a consumer fraud lawsuit filed on behalf of a labor union health care plan,
the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 Welfare Fund.
Attorneys Christopher Seeger and David Buchanan,
representing the fund, want Higbee to allow them to
sue Merck on behalf of third-party health payors
nationwide, such as HMOs and other insurers, alleging that Merck committed
fraud by not disclosing important information about Vioxx.
Merck outside counsel Jeffrey Judd said afterward that he argued Higbee should not allow a class-action suit, stating that
consumer fraud laws vary considerably from state to state and that third-party payors had different information and did individual
analyses in deciding whether to cover Vioxx under
prescription drug plans.
Following the 3{-hour hearing, Higbee said she would
consider the information and issue a ruling later.
Seeger, of