The plaintiff in the first legal test of Vioxx alleges that Merck knew for years before pulling it from the market that the drug had cardiovascular dangers, but downplayed those concerns in favor of profits.

On Wednesday, jurors were to hear the last word from Merck's legal team and plaintiff's attorney Mark Lanier in closing arguments before they began weighing the evidence.

Merck rested its case Tuesday in a trial that has drawn national attention from pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers and stock analysts as the first of several tests of what lies ahead for the New Jersey-based drug maker.

Merck has vowed to fight the more than 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the country.

Risk of Heart Attack or Stroke

Merck took Vioxx off the market in September when a study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or longer. The one-time $2.5 billion seller went on the market in 1999 and was taken by 20 million people when available to consumers.

Carol Ernst alleges Vioxx triggered her husband's death in his sleep just one month shy of their first wedding anniversary. He took the drug for eight months to ease pain in his hands.

She also alleges Merck knew for years before pulling Vioxx from the market that the drug had cardiovascular dangers, but downplayed those concerns in favor of profits. Merck counters that the company acted responsibly, disclosed research and believed Vioxx was safe until the study that prompted its withdrawal.

The first three questions on the jury's verdict form involve whether Vioxx was a cause of Robert Ernst's death. Jurors don't have to pinpoint Vioxx as the sole cause to give an affirmative answer.

If one or more garners a "yes," jurors proceed to the remaining three questions involving financial damages. If the panel decides to award Carol Ernst economic damages for her husband's lost earnings and non-economic damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship, jurors also can consider whether to tack on punitive damages.

In Texas, punitive damages are capped at two times the amount of economic damages and up to $750,000 atop non-economic damages.

In all, 15 witnesses testified during the trial 40 miles south of Houston, some by videotaped deposition. Most testified for Carol Ernst, including herself.

Autopsy Report

Merck has relied heavily on Ernst's autopsy report, which attributes his death to an arrhythmia secondary to clogged arteries. The company says no studies link Vioxx to arrhythmia, so the drug couldn't have caused his death.

The pathologist who performed the autopsy testified that a heart attack caused by a blood clot more than likely caused Ernst's fatal arrhythmia. But she said she didn't note either in her report because vigorous CPR that fractured some of Ernst's ribs likely dislodged a clot and he died too quickly for his heart to show damage from a heart attack.

The pathologist didn't blame Vioxx for causing the clot or heart attack, noting she knew little of the drug in 2001. But three other plaintiff's experts -- a cardiologist and two medical professors -- said Vioxx triggered Ernst's death.

Two other cardiology and pathology experts testified for Merck that Ernst died from clogged coronary arteries -- one of which was blocked by up to 75 percent. They praised the autopsy report as complete, and dismissed as invalid the pathologist's theory of heart attack causing the arrhythmia.

Another Vioxx trial is scheduled to begin next month in New Jersey. The first federal trial is scheduled for November in New Orleans.