A setback today for plaintiffs in the Vioxx appeals court trials in New Jersey and Texas against Merck, the drugmaker. Although Vioxx was finally pulled from shelves in 2004, litigation against Merck has been ongoing for years.

Laywers claimed that Vioxx caused a fatal heart problem in Robert Ernst, setting off a blood clot. However, a Texas court found no evidence for Vioxx as the cause of his heart attack. Lawyers had originally won a $253 million verdict, later reduced to $26 million.

And in New Jersey, John McDarby found his verdict of $13.9 million reduced by $9 million in Atlantic City. He survived a heart attack - Vioxx lawyers had claimed the drug was at fault. Another case, for Thomas Cona, was heard concurrently in Atlantic City.

The two cases don’t close the question of Vioxx heart attacks, because lawyers for both Robert Ernst, John McDarby, and many other plaintiffs plan to press ahead with litigation against Merck for Vioxx injuries. According to USA Today, the failure of the FDA to definitively decide whether Vioxx, known in its generic form as rofecoxib, was more or less dangerous than other arthritis painkillers has left the ground open for Vioxx lawyers for years to come.

For John McDarby and Robert Ernst, however, the cases are drawing to a close. There’s still room for appeal: lawyer W. Mark Lanier criticized the Texas system of electing judges, asserting it was “outrageous” that all three judges on the appellate panel took campaign contributions from law firms involved in defending Merck.

But on news of the verdicts, Merck stock took an upturn and observers believe that the days of large Vioxx heart attack lawsuits and awards are at an end.