An Australian court on Wednesday overturned a judgment that found the once-popular painkiller Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and was unfit for consumption.

The Federal Court's decision reverses a 2010 ruling that had found in favor of an Australian man who blamed the since-recalled drug for a heart attack he suffered. The court said the man, a former smoker, was susceptible to a heart attack independent of taking the drug.

The 2010 judgment — which awarded Graeme Peterson 287,000 Australian dollars ($285,000) in compensation — had opened the door for claims from hundreds of other litigants in a lawsuit against U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. over the arthritis painkiller.

Vioxx was taken off the international market in 2004 after research showed it raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Merck, the world's second-largest drugmaker by revenue, later paid a $4.85 billion settlement to resolve about 50,000 lawsuits in the U.S.

Peterson sued Merck and its Australian subsidiary, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, arguing the painkiller was the cause of his 2003 heart attack, which left him unable to work.

In March 2010, Federal Court Judge Christopher Jessup found that Merck Sharpe & Dohme failed in its duty of care by not warning Peterson's doctor about the drug's potential cardiovascular risks, and by its sales representatives emphasizing the drug's safety. Jessup also concluded that the consumption of Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and was unfit for use as a pain reliever.

Merck Sharpe & Dohme appealed that decision. On Wednesday, the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled the 2010 judgment should be thrown out and said the drug company was not liable for damages. The money originally awarded to Peterson has been held by the court since the initial ruling, so there is nothing for him to pay back.

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a gay couple who want both of their names to appear on the Louisiana birth certificate of the child they adopted.

The court said Tuesday it won't review a federal appeals court ruling against the adoptive parents. The appeals court ruled that the Louisiana registrar's insistence that only one father's name can go on the certificate does not violate the child's right to equal protection under the law or deny legal recognition of the adoption by both men. The adoption occurred in New York, which allows same-sex couples to adopt.

Louisiana says its birth certificate policy reflects state law prohibiting adoption by unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or gay.