By: LISA R. WILSON

The latest slew of overturned verdicts against Merck, the makers of the withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, is yet another indication of the increasing difficulty that plaintiffs’ lawyers are experiencing in winning lawsuits against big drug companies. The latest ruling overturned a $26 million jury verdict against Merck in Texas based on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to link use of Vioxx to a plaintiff’s fatal heart attack. The initial lawsuit was brought by Carol Ernst, whose husband, Robert, died in 2001 after taking Vioxx. The verdict reversal came after the appeals court found the plaintiffs had not proven that Vioxx caused Mr. Ernst’s death.

“The appellate court recognized that there was insufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict and, accordingly, rendered a final judgment in the case in favor of Merck,” said Ted Mayer, outside counsel for Merck.

Separately, an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a verdict in another Vioxx case. The court ruled that the jury should not have been allowed to award punitive damages against Merck or to find that Merck had committed consumer fraud.

These overturned rulings now leave lawyers for plaintiffs with just three victories, all with relatively small awards, in the nearly 20 Vioxx cases that have reached juries. And plaintiffs are likely to face a continued uphill battle, as these rulings may act to discourage lawyers from pursuing lawsuits against drug makers—even though the two sides have already agreed to a $4.85 billion settlement that will largely end the Vioxx litigation.