Appeals courts in two US states last week overturned verdicts favouring plaintiffs who had sued Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, over its painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib). The drug was taken off the market in 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

In Texas, a three-judge panel reversed a $26-million jury verdict in the first and most public Vioxx lawsuit. It said that lawyers for Carol Ernst had failed to prove that the drug caused the death of her husband in 2001 (see Nature 436, 1070; 2005). Ernst's lead attorney said they would appeal the decision.

The ruling came the same day that a New Jersey appeals court scuttled $9 million in punitive damages awarded to John McDarby in 2006 — arguing that the law under which the money was awarded is trumped by the federal law under which the Food and Drug Administration approves drugs for market.

The reversals mean that, out of 16 Vioxx cases that have completed trials so far, only three have resulted in unqualified victories by plaintiffs. The bigger picture for the company and for tens of thousands of other plaintiffs remains largely unchanged because of a $4.85-billion settlement agreed last November (see Nature 450, 324; 2007).