Vioxx jury gives it's reasons for verdict.

The jurors for the most recently concluded Vioxx trial were interviewed by various news outlets over the past few days, and their thoughts and comments on why McDarby was awarded both $4.5 in compensatory damages, and $9 million in punitive damages, while Cona received virtually nothing for his alleged damages in front of the same jury.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent review online with several revealing comments by jurors, particularly about how they felt Cona had a substantial gap in his medication history, which lead to reasonable doubt that he had taken Vioxx for the entire 2 year period.  

The Boston Globe had a theory put forth by Victor Swartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association, that judge Carol Higbee allowed consideration of punitive damages so as to create extra pressure on Merck to consider settlement, as the threat of punitive in other cases substantially drives up the cost of settlement. I don't know if I agree with Mr. Swartz, but it is an interesting theory and I suggest you read the article.  

In the most provocative article, The Newark Star Ledger online, mentioned that this win will likely create a huge surge of new cases in NJ, particularly because the standard for punitive damages has now been reached, and therefore, the ability to get larger verdicts is far greater today, then it was 4 weeks ago in the same court room. Excellent article and interviews of attorney's that the national press just don't have. Again, highly recommended reading.