From Yahoo.com:
Jami Rubin, a Morgan Stanley analyst, said there is a "decent chance" the jury will find for either of the two plaintiffs who are suing Merck and whose cases are being heard in a single trial. She said the judge's actions indicate a pro-plaintiff tilt and said she believed the jury isn't as educated as the panel in an earlier New Jersey trial who absolved Merck from any responsibility in the heart attack of man who blamed Vioxx for his affliction.
In the current case, Rubin predicted pain and suffering damages in the $1 million to $2 million range but sees no reason for the jury to award punitive damages because there is no evidence of Merck acting recklessly.
My comment: Mr. Cona is one plaintiff. He still plays golf post heart attack, and plays more than thirty times a year. If there is a verdict the range may be $500,00 to $3,000,000.
Read more here.
