Vioxx Lawsuit News

Celebrex and Bextra Litigation Conference

2005-04-19T11:01:00.000-07:00

What follows is a Press Release for a Litigation Conference to discuss possible Celebrex and Bextra Lawsuits:

Press Release Source: LexisNexis
Hundreds of Attorneys, Medical Experts Gather to Discuss Implications of Bextra and Celebrex
Tuesday April 19, 12:19 pm ET

Heavyweights to Discuss Developments, Legal Action at Mealey's Bextra and Celebrex Litigation Conference Sponsored by LexisNexis

DAYTON, Ohio--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 19, 2005--On the heels of Vioxx litigation, legal claims surrounding prescription arthritis drugs are expected to soar following Pfizer's recent suspension of Bextra sales and continued FDA scrutiny of Celebrex. LexisNexis® U.S., a leading provider of legal, news and business information services, will host a symposium next month to help plaintiff and defense attorneys prepare to address these issues. The Mealey's Bextra and Celebrex Litigation Conference will be held on May 11 at the Fairmont Hotel in Chicago.
In addition to plaintiff and defense attorneys, physicians, pharmacologists, legislators and financial analysts will be in attendance at this one-day conference. A sampling of topics to be addressed at the conference includes:

* Bextra and Celebrex history, clinical studies and adverse effects
* Cardiology issues associated with the use of Bextra and Celebrex
* The link between Bextra use and Stevens Johnson Syndrome
* FDA legal and regulatory issues including the recently established Drug Monitoring board
* Effectiveness of prescription label warnings and liability
* Theories of liability and defense including causation

For registration information on the Mealey's Bextra and Celebrex Litigation Conference, visit www.mealeys.com/conferences or call 1-800-MEALEYS

Ohio Vioxx Lawsuits Filed

2005-04-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

In an article for the Toledo Blade, Mark Reiter reports that a Toledo man and a Maumee woman have each filed a Vioxx lawsuit against Merck. Both Mrs. Judith Williams, 63, and Mr. Charles J.Hughes, 50, suffered a heart attacks after being prescribed Vioxx. Their Vioxx lawsuits were filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Toledo. They allege that Vioxx was the cause of their heart attacks.

Jane E. Joseph, a Cleveland attorney, is representing both plaintiffs. They are asking for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $75,000 and attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs related to the legal action.

For more information: Selecting a Vioxx Attorney

Merck Updates Vioxx Problem

2005-03-15T11:08:00.000-08:00

Merck Insurerers Don't Want to Pay Vioxx Claims
With the number of Vioxx related lawsuits mounting, Merck has revealed that some of their insurance carriers are balking at providing coverage for the company's defense against the lawsuits. Merck said the insurers initiated an arbitration proceeding to cancel certain policies "and to void all of their obligations under those policies with respect to the Vioxx lawsuits."

According to an SEC filing made by Merck, the insurance companies are seeking to "void their coverage obligations with respect to certain other types of losses covered by those policies." Merck feels that the insurance companies may also try to limit their Vioxx related expenses with "the application of exclusions, the definition of loss, compliance with policy conditions ... coverage limits, and satisfactory proof of loss."

Vioxx Lawsuits Continue to Grow
Merck added the following information regarding Vioxx lawsuits:

*** the number of product liability lawsuits filed in state and federal courts has grown to 850 as of Jan. 31, featuring more than 2,400 plaintiff groups

*** Merck has been named in approximately 90 other class-action lawsuits seeking compensation under state consumer protection and/or fraud laws

*** 21 lawsuits have been filed in federal courts alleging securities fraud relating to the marketing of and subsequent withdrawal of Vioxx.

*** 11 suits have been filed seeking payments on behalf of current and former employees who participate in Merck retirement plans

*** Merck also is being sued over Vioxx in four other continents.

Merck has set aside $675 million in a reserve for the costs of defending itself in the Vioxx cases however it hasn't established any reserve for potential liabilities. "At this time, the company believes it is reasonably possible its insurance coverage with respect to the Vioxx lawsuits will not be adequate to cover its defense costs and any losses," Merck said.

Related article: Vioxx Problems Continue and How to Select a Vioxx Attorney

Vioxx Problems Continue

2005-03-07T07:43:00.000-08:00

The roller coaster that is the world of the Vioxx lawsuits continued with news that 10 of the 32 panel members of the FDA committee to investigate the safety of Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra had ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA panel voted to allow Celebrex and Bextra to remain on the market and to recommend that Vioxx be re-introduced to the market. The panel voted 31-1 to keep Pfizer's Celebrex on the market, 17-13 with 2 abstentions in favor of Pfizer's Bextra and 17-15 that Merck's Vioxx should be allowed back on sale.

Most recommendations by FDA panels are followed by the FDA and these particular recommedations caused defense lawyers for Merck and Pfizer to be very optimistic. If the FDA says these painkillers should be on the market, then what basis is there for lawsuits?

Plaintiff lawyers were clearly disappointed. They were counting on the FDA to provide more amunition for their suits against Merck and Pfizer.

However, the tide has turned again with the revelation that 10 of the 32 panel members had ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In fact if those 10 panelists had not voted, the committee would have rejected future sales of Bextra and Vioxx. All of the 10 advisers with industry ties voted to keep Bextra on the market. Nine of them voted to let Vioxx be sold again.

Now it is the defense lawyers turn to be disappointed. If they try to say that the FDA panel recommended that Vioxx be returned to the marketplace the Vioxx attorneys can say that result of the panel's vote were clearly biased.

The first Vioxx trials are slated to begin this spring. The Vioxx problem has and will continue to have an enormous effect on the lives of many people. If you or anyone you know has suffered from the effects of Vioxx, please read, How to Select a Vioxx Attorney

Foreign Vioxx Lawsuits Continue to Grow

2005-03-02T05:44:00.000-08:00

In a trend that will undoubtedly continue a British newspaper has announced that more than 100 Vioox lawsuits are about to be filed. As reported here earlier, attorneys in both New Zealand and Autstralia are preparing more Vioxx cases and more cases are expected throughout the world.

The article goes on to state, "The number of claims internationally will grow as more patients affected by Vioxx come forward."

Mark Harvey, a solicitor, at Hugh James Solicitors in Cardiff, which specialises in cases against the pharmaceutical industry, said he was representing 100 British patients who had experienced severe cardiovascular difficulties while on Vioxx. The alleged victims have joined forces with a New Jersey law firm that is preparing to sue Merck on behalf of 300 US patients.

South Dakota Lawfirm files more Vioxx Lawsuits

2005-02-24T06:01:00.000-08:00

South Dakota Lawyers not Bothered by FDA Panel
Seven more federal cases against Merck & Co. have been filed by the South Dakota lawfirm of Delaney, Vander Linden, Delaney, Nielsen and Sannes. The suit allege that Merck's painkiller Vioxx, caused patients to suffer strokes or heart attacks.

"Our clients were taking Vioxx for a number of months, and as a result of that, had cardiovascular problems such as strokes and heart attacks," attorney Lonnie Vander Linden said. "We believe Merck & Co. is responsible for putting a product on the market that wasn't completely tested. There should have been warnings."

The plaintiffs are from various parts of South Dakota and according to Vander Linden the cases filed are individual complaints. They are not part of a class action lawsuit and will be tried in South Dakota.

40 to 50 More Vioxx Cases to be Filed
The firm has another 40-50 Vioxx cases yet to be filed. The suits do not specify a dollar value for damages, "We're just going to leave it up to the juries," Vander Linden said.

Related article: Healthy Woman files Vioxx Lawsuit and Doctors in Pain Over Vioxx

New Zealanders File Vioxx Lawsuits

2005-02-21T07:34:00.000-08:00

Foreign Lawsuits Continue Against Merck
According to an article in the Manawatu Standard, the Brisbane law firm, Quinn Scattini is filing suit against Merck, the makers of Vioxx on behalf of 200 Australians and New Zealanders.

"Wellington medico-legal expert Roger Chapman said claimants would have to prove there was a risk that the manufacturers knew or should have known. If the company was found to have run flawed drug trials, suppressed information or failed to give adequate warnings, it could be liable for damages."

The New Zealand Health Ministry has advised against the routine use of cox-2 inhibitor drugs, following the withdrawal of Vioxx. It is conducting a review of these drugs including Celebrex and Arcoxia, and a recommendation is expected this week.

Related stories: Vioxx Lawsuit filed by Healthy Woman Florida Doctor Files Vioxx Lawsuit

Heart Attack Victim files Vioxx Lawsuit in San Francisco

2005-02-17T16:57:00.000-08:00

Man Had Heart Attack While in Vioxx Study
In news that can only be described as strange, a 65 year old Redwood City man, Joe Segura has filed a Vioxx lawsuit. What makes this particular Vioxx Lawsuit strange, is that Segura was participating in a study of Vioxx when he suffered a heart attack.

Further complicating this case is the fact that doctors overseeing the clinical trial continued to give the drug to Segura after the heart attack. In fact, Segura continued to take Vioxx until it was recalled from the market in September of 2004.

Segura's lawsuit, cited newspaper articles, e-mails and other correspondence suggesting Merck knew about the heart attack risk posed by Vioxx as early as 1999. "They knew for years that this was a dangerous drug," said one of Segura's attorneys, Donald Galine.

One of the key points in this suit revolves around the consent form. David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics says, "If it's true that there are known risks that the company did not disclose in the informed consent process, that would be a very large problem."

The suit states that injuries from the heart attack continue to impact Segura's life and have prevented him from working.

FDA Begins COX-2 Drug Inquiry Today

2005-02-16T07:12:00.000-08:00

Status of Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra to be Determined
The three day inquiry into the COX-2 pinkiller drugs, Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra will begin today in Gaithersburg, Maryland. From the FDA's standpoint it is important to analyse the studies and determine if possible why these drugs cause serious heart problems. Thousands of suffering patients and their doctors are seeking answers.

From a legal standpoint, the results of this inquiry will also be important. There are many unanswered questions regarding the Vioxx recall, a possible recall of Celebrex and Bextra and exactly what information is possessed by Merck and Pfizer that has not yet been made public.

Currently there are over seven hundred Vioxx lawsuits filed with many more being prepared. Most of the lawyers involved with Celebrex lawsuits are waiting to see what new evidence will be presented at this inquiry. The case against Pfizer (Celebrex, Bextra) does not appear to be nearly as strong as the case against Merck.

The lawyers involved with the Vioxx and Celebrex lawsuits will be looking for three key pieces of information:

*** Is there any new information that has been witheld by Merck and/or Pfizer?

*** Are there any gaps or inconsistencies in the available scientific evidence? (The defendants lawyers could use these to justify keeping the products on the market.)

*** Will the FDA strongly critcize or condemn the actions of Merck and/or Pfizer? (If not, the defendants lawyers will be able to say that the FDA looked into this problem and said we did nothing wrong!)

The patients and doctors will be watching the proceedings closely - almost as closely as the lawyers.

Related stories: FDA to Probe Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra and Vioxx Bombshell to be Presented to FDA

Florida Doctor Files Vioxx Lawsuit

2005-02-10T16:18:00.000-08:00

Heart Damage Forces Doctor to Give Up Practice
According to a press release issued by the Florida law firm of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, LLP., Dr. Robert Plasko and his wife, Wendy have filed a Vioxx lawsuit aqainst Merck and Co. The suit alleges that "Dr. Plasko developed significant heart damage as a result of taking Vioxx(R) for approximately nine (9) months in 2003."

"As a result of Dr. Plasko's taking Vioxx(R) and his subsequent heart damage, Dr. Plasko is now disabled, and was forced to give up his medical practice of sixteen (16) years. Dr. Plasko states that as a consumer and a physician, he was misled by Merck and its sales staff, and that he hopes this litigation will serve as a means to prevent such corrupt activity from happening again in the future."

Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, LLP. is representing or reviewing close to 300 cases involving adverse incidents where individuals or a deceased family member had taken Vioxx(R).

For more information about Florida Vioxx Litigation:
CONTACT: Jamie Longhurst, Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams,LLP, +1-561-820-2264, Web site: http://www.palmbeachlaw.com/

Related article: Healthy Woman Files Vioxx Lawsuit

Vioxx Lawsuit Filed by 'Healthy Woman'

2005-02-09T06:57:00.000-08:00

Vioxx Problem Grows for Merck
At 50 years of age, Marilyn Hainsworth's life was full of bike rides, swimming and hiking. Add to that some yoga and a 'near vegetarian' diet and you have a recipe for good health.

Then, 4 months after being prescribed Vioxx, Hainsworth found herself in the Kootenai Medical Center's new cardiac center being treated for a heart attack. A heart attack she believes was caused by the Vioxx medication she was taking for the pain caused by a repaired hernia.

Fortunately, due to her years as a trained wilderness responder and lifeguard she recognized the signs of a heart attack and survived. She had no history of heart problems.

These days Hainsworth is still working on restoring her health and has joined in the Vioxx class action suit filed by the lawfirm Owens, James, Vernon and Weeks from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The firm has filed suit on behalf of 42 plaintiffs including the family of a Sandpoint man that died after taking Vioxx.

Complete Story: Woman Survives Heart Attack - Files Vioxx Lawsuit
Original story by Cynthia Taggart of the Spokesman-Review.com

Related Articles: Vioxx Lawsuits to Begin this Spring and Selecting a Vioxx Attorney

Vioxx Lawsuit Filed in Spokane Washington

2005-01-29T10:57:00.000-08:00

An article by Bill Morlin for the Spokesman-Review.com, says that the first Vioxx lawsuit to be filed in the Spokane area has been filed against Merck & Co. The suit was filed by attorneys Robert Crotty and Matthew Zuchetto on behalf of William Schmidt, who lives in Spokane Valley and represents the estate of his late wife, Florence.

The 75-year-old Spokane Valley woman, suffering from arthritis, took the drug from November 2000 until Jan. 28, 2002, when she suffered a stroke. She died two weeks later.

This Vioxx lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for “pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of capacity to enjoy life and loss of consortium.”

“What happened here is egregious,” Crotty said Friday. “It should have never happened.”

“Merck continued to aggressively advertise, market and defend the safety of Vioxx” until last Sept. 30 when the drug company “finally admitted that the drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.” the suit says.

“The withdrawal came too late for Florence Schmidt, who took Vioxx without notice of the inherent risks to her health or the opportunity to switch from Vioxx to safer products for pain relief from her arthritic condition,” the suit said.

For the complete story: Vioxx Lawsuit
For related article: Illinois Vioxx Lawsuit and Federal Judges Meet to Discuss Vioxx Problem

Federal Judges to Meet in Fort Myers to Discuss Vioxx Lawsuits

2005-01-26T09:51:00.000-08:00

A panel of seven federal judges will meet January 27th with attorneys at the federal courthouse in Fort Myers to hold multi-district litigation proceedings. The seven federal judges have a lot of decisions to make before the actual trial starts.

Vioxx class action lawyers from all over the U.S. will attend. They will be especially interested in three judicial decisions - where the trial will be held, who will be the lead attorneys, and if all the cases will be grouped together in one trial.

If you believe that you have been harmed by Vioxx you should consult with your doctor and discuss your case with a lawyer. Read Selecting a Vioxx Lawyer.

Pittsburgh Woman files Vioxx Lawsuit

2005-01-26T09:34:00.000-08:00

An article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review By David Conti states that a 54 year old Pittsburgh woman, Saundra Southern, has filed suit against Merck, the makers of Vioxx. She is seeking unspecified damages for what her lawyers described as "reckless indifference to the interest of the consumers."

Mrs. Southern took Vioxx for arthritis from September 2001 until she suffered a stroke in February of 2004. She now has partial paralysis of her left side. The lawsuit contends that Merck knew about the increased risk of heart problems in Vioxx patients as early as 2000. "She thought Vioxx would help her, and it ended up almost killing her," her attorney Peter J. Payne said Tuesday.

Related story: Illinois Vioxx Suit Filed

Vioxx Update from Merck

2005-01-25T10:56:00.000-08:00

Today Merck and Co, Inc. released it's 2004 full year results. Most of the information provided was expected by analysts and obviously Merck has been seriously hurt by the Vioxx recall. However there were some interesting and unexpected revelations. Here are some highlights:

*** Merck is facing three different types of lawsuits. They are Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, Vioxx Securities Lawsuits and Employee Retirement Income Security Lawsuits.

*** Merck is being investigated by The Securities Exchange Commision, the U.S. Department of Justice and some Congressional Committees.

*** Merck has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in Europe, Canada, Brazil, Autralia and Israel.

*** Merck believes that it's insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover its defense costs and losses.

*** Merck has not established any reserves for any potential Vioxx liability.

What follows is Vioxx information taken directly from the Merck website:

Vioxx Litigation Update

As previously disclosed, federal and state personal injury lawsuits involving individual claims, as well as several putative class actions have been filed against the company with respect to VIOXX. As of Dec. 31, the company has been served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 575 lawsuits, which include approximately 1,400 plaintiff groups alleging personal injuries resulting from the use of VIOXX. Certain of these lawsuits include allegations regarding gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular events, thrombotic events or kidney damage. The company has also been named as a defendant in approximately 70 putative class actions alleging personal injuries or seeking (i) medical monitoring as a result of the putative class members' use of VIOXX, (ii) disgorgement of certain profits under common law unjust enrichment theories, and/or (iii) various remedies under state consumer fraud and fair business practice statutes, including recovering the cost of VIOXX purchased by individuals and third-party payors such as union health plans (all of the actions discussed in this paragraph are collectively referred to as the "VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits"). The actions filed in the state courts of California and New Jersey, respectively, have been transferred to a single judge in each state for coordinated proceedings. In addition, the company has filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to transfer to a single federal judge and consolidate for pretrial purposes all federal cases alleging personal injury and/or economic loss relating to the purchase or use of VIOXX; several plaintiffs in certain VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits pending in federal court have made similar requests. The hearing on these motions will be held on Jan. 27.

Also as previously disclosed, in addition to the VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits, a number of purported class action lawsuits have been brought naming as defendants the company and several current or former officers of the company, and alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding VIOXX in violation of the federal securities laws (the "VIOXX Securities Lawsuits"). As of Dec. 31, 14 VIOXX Securities Lawsuits have been filed. In addition to the VIOXX Securities Lawsuits, as previously disclosed, shareholders have brought derivative lawsuits against the company. As of Dec. 31, six such lawsuits have been filed. In addition, the company has received a demand from two shareholders that the Board take legal action against Raymond V. Gilmartin, chairman, president and chief executive officer, and other unspecified individuals for allegedly causing damage to the company through the allegedly improper marketing of VIOXX. Also, as previously disclosed, lawsuits asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) have been brought against the company. As of Dec. 31, 10 such lawsuits have been filed. The company has filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer to a single federal judge and consolidate for pretrial purposes all federal lawsuits discussed in this paragraph (collectively, the "VIOXX Shareholder Lawsuits" and together with the VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits and the lawsuits discussed in the next paragraph, the "VIOXX Lawsuits"). The hearing on this motion will be held on Jan. 27.

In addition to the lawsuits discussed above, the company has been named as a defendant in actions in various countries in Europe, Canada, Brazil, Australia and Israel related to VIOXX.

Based on media reports and other sources, the company anticipates that additional VIOXX Lawsuits will be filed against it and/or certain of its current and former officers and directors in the future.

As previously disclosed, there are investigations concerning VIOXX currently being conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice and certain Congressional committees. Also, the District Attorney's Office in Munich, Germany has notified the company's subsidiary in Germany that it has received complaints and commenced an investigation in order to determine whether any criminal charges should be brought in Germany concerning VIOXX (together with the previously mentioned investigations, the "VIOXX Investigations").

Also as previously disclosed, the company has product liability insurance for claims brought in the VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits of up to approximately $630 million after deductibles and co-insurance. This insurance provides coverage for legal defense costs and potential damage amounts that have been or will be incurred in connection with the VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits. The company believes that this insurance coverage extends to additional VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits that may be filed in the future. Certain of the company's insurers have reserved their rights to take a contrary position with respect to certain coverage and there could be disputes with insurers about coverage matters. The company currently believes that it has at least approximately $190 million of Directors and Officers insurance coverage for the VIOXX Securities Lawsuits and VIOXX Derivative Lawsuits, and at least approximately $275 million of insurance coverage for the VIOXX ERISA Lawsuits. Additional insurance coverage for these claims may also be available under upper-level excess policies that provide coverage for a variety of risks. There may be disputes with insurers about the availability of some or all of this insurance coverage. At this time, the company believes it is reasonably possible that its insurance coverage with respect to the VIOXX Lawsuits will not be adequate to cover its defense costs and losses, if any.

The company currently anticipates that one or more of the VIOXX Product Liability Lawsuits may go to trial in the first half of 2005. The company cannot predict the timing of any trials with respect to the VIOXX Shareholder Lawsuits. The company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the VIOXX Lawsuits and will vigorously defend against them. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, particularly where there are many claimants and the claimants seek indeterminate damages, the company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to the VIOXX Lawsuits. The company has established a reserve of $675 million solely for its future legal defense costs related to the VIOXX Lawsuits and the VIOXX Investigations. This reserve is based on certain assumptions and is the minimum amount that the company believes at this time it can reasonably estimate will be spent over a multi-year period. In accordance with GAAP and consistent with Merck's practice, the company significantly increased the reserve when it had the ability to reasonably estimate its future legal defense costs for the VIOXX litigation based on both actual costs incurred as well as the development of its legal defense strategy and structure in light of the expanded scope of the litigation. The company will continue to monitor its legal defense costs and review the adequacy of the associated reserves. The company has not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to the VIOXX litigation. Unfavorable outcomes in the VIOXX Lawsuits or resulting from the VIOXX Investigations could have a material adverse effect on the company's financial position, liquidity and results of operations.

Related Stories: Vioxx Lawsuits Begin this Spring and Selecting a Vioxx Attorney

Illinois Vioxx Suit Filed Claiming Damages

2005-01-24T05:58:00.000-08:00

An article in the Madison-St.Clair Record by Steve Gonzalez says that the first Vioxx lawsuit in Madison County claiming damages, has been filed by David J McQuay.

McQuay claims that he was unaware of the dangers of Vioxx and that at the time Vioxx was sold to him it was "defective in design and unreasonably dangerous, subjecting him to risks of heart attack, strokes and other illnesses."

"Vioxx possessed serious life threatening side effects. . ."

Mr. McQuay is represented by attorneys Jeffrey Lowe, Joseph P. Dani and Evan Buxner and has also claimed that adequate testing was not done by Merck and that "Vioxx possessed serious life threatening side effects. . ."

The claim further states that, "Merck failed to warn users and doctors that numerous other methods of pain relievers, including Ibuprofen, Naproxen and Mobic were safer."

Mr. McQuay has developed heart disease and has undergone quadruple heart bypass surgery.

Related article: Can Vioxx Suits be Won?

First Vioxx Lawsuit Case to Begin This Spring

2005-01-22T17:08:00.000-08:00

The first of over 700 lawsuits filed against Merck, the makers of painkiller Vioxx is scheduled to begin this spring.

A Houston judge has set May 2, 2005 as the date for the trial of a 37 year old man that died of a heart attack after taking Vioxx and a Los Angeles judge has set July 7 as the date for another Vioxx trial. This one will combine 5 plaintiff suits against Merck.

Other dates are expected to be set throughout the country and there is to be a hearing on January 21, 2005 to determine which judge will hear the Vioxx cases that have been filed in federal court.

Related articles: Selecting a Vioxx Attorney and Vioxx Attorneys Meet in Philadelphia

Vioxx Attorneys Meet in Philadelphia

2005-01-21T11:21:00.000-08:00

It must have looked like a scene from a John Grisham novel, 250 lawyers crowded into Philadelphia's Wyndham Hotel ballroom. All of them 'Vioxx lawyers' trying to figure out the best way to attack the 'Bank of Merck'.

Since the FDA recalled Vioxx, product liability lawfirms have been building lists of clients that had allegedly been harmed by Merck's pain killer medication. Meetings like the one held this week in Philadelphia allow the lawyers to discuss strategies, case law, the role of the FDA and the preparation of witnesses. With billions of dollars at stake - these are inportant meetings.

Many of the 'Vioxx lawyers' at this meeting believe they have strong cases against Merck. They can cite numerous studies that link Vioxx to increases in heart attack and stroke. They can also refer to a series of internal company communications that suggests Merck executives knew about Vioxx's dangers before the recall.

On the other side of this issue stands Merck. They insist that they want to try each of the cases separately and not as a class action. They believe that it will be hard to prove a direct link between taking Vioxx and suffering a heart attack. They say many of the Vioxx patients were older and therefore already at risk. Also, Merck executives say the internal communications have been taken out of context and that they have nothing to hide.

Vioxx Lawyers vs Corporate Giants

It's going to be an interesting battle. The 'Vioxx lawyers' against the huge corporation. With billions of dollars on the line, you have to think that somewhere John Grisham is watching very closely.

Editors note: John Grisham is the author of 'The King of Torts', which gives some unique insites into the legal profession the the system of class action lawsuits.

Related article:Can Vioxx Lawsuits be Won

Are Vioxx Lawsuits Dead?

2005-01-19T08:49:00.000-08:00

For some time now, President Bush has wanted to limit the ability of tort attorneys to file class action lawsuits. Now with huge Vioxx lawsuits being filed and the threat of Celebrex lawsuits looming, Bush sees this as an opportuntiy that is too good to pass up.

When is he ever going to get a better chance to attack lawyers? He recently said, "What's happening all across this country is that lawyers are filing baseless suits . . . . . that means you're paying for junk lawsuits everytime you go to see your doctor . . ."

Bush likes to talk about the $28 billion that gets spent yearly on malpractice costs. The fact is, this represents only 2% of health care spending while pharmaceutical costs are 12-16%. So, is the president trying to lower drug costs or would he rather try to scare the American public?

The answer to that question was supplied by the Republicans in the form of a leaked memo called 'The Language of Lawsuit Abuse Reform'. It suggests that Republican lawmakers use terms like 'lawsuit epidemic' and 'crippling our health care system'. The memo also states, "Nothing scares a person more than needing emergency medical care and not being able to get it".

"President Bush doesn't let facts get in the way when it comes to his political goal of dismantling the legal system," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "He prefers to coddle campaign contributors, rather than protect consumers and patients," added Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch. "This is not a debate among reasonable people. It is a massive campaign of distortions carried out by the administration in league with its business allies. The fact is, the emperor has no clothes."

Do you have any doubt that Bush will side with the pharmaceutical giants against the interests of citizens that have been hurt by drugs like Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra? The lobbyists are working overtime in Washington and it should come as no surpise that on the list of contributors to the upcoming Bush inauguration, Pfizer Inc. (Celebrex and Bextra) has made the maximum $250,000 contribution.

What could be more 'Bush' than distorting the truth and scaring the American people? You remember those 'weapons of mass destruction' don't you? The ones that still haven't been found!

Related story: Vioxx Lawsuit

Celebrex and Vioxx Victims About to Lose Rights?

2005-01-13T07:12:00.000-08:00

Over the years, two systems have emerged that act to protect the American consumer. The first is the various regulatory agencies that oversee the production and distribution of products. Among them are the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and of course the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Each of these organizations has various functions, but their principle job is to protect the American consumer from unsafe situations and products.

The second system that protects the consumer is the legal system and in particular, laws known as 'torts'. These laws allow the consumer to file suit against companies that have produced dangerous products or have acted fraudulently etc. If you have been harmed by a company or their products you have the right to sue that company.

When regulatory agencies fail to do a complete job and citizens are exposed to potentially dangerous products such as Celebrex, Vioxx and Bextra there has always been the option to use the tort laws and file suit. The tort laws provided a strong monetary incentive for companies to ensure that the products that they sold were safe for consumers to use.

Bush Wants to Change the Rules

It seems that this system is about to change. President Bush feels that agencies like the FDA are 'doing a spectacular job' and that the tort laws are too strong. He wants to change them to limit your ability to file suit and he wants to limit the amount of your settlement if you succeed in court. President Bush is seeking to limit the rights of people harmed by drugs like Vioxx.

Unforunately, as is so often the case with this president, he is out of step with reality. We are living in a world of instant gratification. Companies are pushing harder and harder to get products to market - often without ensuring that they are adequately tested. Competition is intense and the push to get new products to market is heightened by shareholders that want immediate results. So, does Bush do the logical thing and give agencies like the FDA more power and money to further protect American citizens? No. He seeks to limit their ability to file suit.

FDA Failed in Vioxx and Celebrex Cases

The simple truth here is that agencies like the FDA are no longer able to do their job properly. They are grossly underfunded and in many cases quite powerless. (The FDA can't even control pharmaceutical companies advertisiing direct to the public.) When regulatory agencies such as the FDA cannot do their job, the tort laws become the only defense against corporate negligence and greed.

With Bush in power and the Republicans having received millions from the pharmaceutical companies in re-election campaign funds, it's likely that things are about to change. Do you know someone that has been hurt by the use of Vioxx? Ask if they like the proposed changes.

For a related story: Bush Protects Makers of Vioxx and Celebrex

Vioxx and Celebrex Lawsuit Conspiracy?

2005-01-11T08:36:00.000-08:00

Is it fair to say that President Bush and the makers of Vioxx (Merck) and the maker of Celebrex (Pfizer Inc.) have entered into a conspiracy to limit the liability of pharmaceutical companies and therefore infringe on the rights of American citizens? You be the judge . . .

In late September of 2004 the FDA ordered the recall of Vioxx after studies showed that it increased the risk of serious heart problems. This was followed by an avalanche of Vioxx class action lawsuits, filed on behalf of those that had been injured or killed by Vioxx use.

Shortly thereafter, another study showed that two other COX-2 type drugs, Celebrex and Bextra also caused similar heart problems. The drugs, Celebrex and Bextra were not recalled but all advertising for them was halted.

About this time President Bush arrived on the scene and began promoting a piece of legislation that would sharply limit the liability of the drug manufacturers. In fact it would cap damage awards at just $250,000. Bush was quoted as saying,

"...What's happening all across this country is that lawyers are filing baseless suits...That means you're paying for junk lawsuits every time you go to see your doctor...", but Bush's own Congressional Budget Office estimated that malpractice costs are approximately 2% of health care costs while pharmaceutical cost are between 12 and 16%.

"If President Bush wants to create more affordable and accessible health care, he should allow Americans to buy their prescription drugs through bulk purchasing programs as Canadians do and he will reduce health care costs by up to 10%," said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "The President should not be scaring the public into falsely believing they must give up their right to go court out of fear of losing their ability to go to an emergency room."

Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen had this to say,
"President Bush doesn't let facts get in the way when it comes to his political goal of dismantling the legal system. He prefers to coddle campaign contributors, rather than protect consumers and patients."

Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch added,
"This is not a debate among reasonable people. It is a massive campaign of distortions carried out by the administration in league with its business allies. The fact is, the emperor has no clothes."

So, here are the facts. The drug companies don't want to have to pay damages when faced with class action lawsuits concerning drugs like Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra. President Bush is on the side of the drug companies. He wants to limit your right to file suit and he wants to limit your award should you happen to win. Just one more fact . . . . the drug companies donated millions of dollars to the Bush re-election campaign.

For a related story: Vioxx Lawsuits

Selecting a Vioxx Attorney

2005-01-09T09:51:00.000-08:00

Since the painkiller Vioxx was recalled by Merck in late September, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of thousands of Vioxx users. Did you use Vioxx? Were you damaged in any way from using Vioxx? Do you have a case against Merck? Consulting a class action attorney is the only way to know.

The following information relates to the Vioxx recall and the selection of a Vioxx attorney but it may also apply in the case of a Celebrex or Bextra recall.

Finding a Vioxx Attorney

1) Consult a Vioxx attorney. Not all attorneys specialize in class action suits, so just any attorney will not do. Look at the ads on this page or do a 'Google' search for "Vioxx attorney".

2) If you visit a website and you don't see clearly that it is operated by a lawyer - leave. Do not give any personal information to an intermediary of any kind. A website operated by a Vioxx attorney should have complete contact information including the name, address and phone number and not just an email address.

3) If something looks 'too good to be true' - it probably is 'too good to be true'. Don't be fooled by phony websites that promise to make you a 'Vioxx millionaire'.

4) Consult with friends and relatives regarding the selection of a Vioxx attorney. They may know of an excellent attorney that specializes in class action lawsuits.

5) Be informed. Read articles on Vioxx recall and Vioxx lawsuits on this site and on sites such as Vioxx News and Celebrex and Vioxx Update.

6) The only person that can tell if you have a viable case is a Vioxx attorney. If you or someone you love has been hurt by the use of Vioxx, you owe it to yourself to consult with a Vioxx attorney.

Can Vioxx Lawsuits be Won?

2005-01-06T08:24:00.000-08:00

Lawyers throughout the country have been collecting Vioxx clients at a rapid pace and have increased their advertising dramatically. Many Vioxx users have suffered serious heart problems and are looking for a legal remedy.

Vioxx Cases aren't 'Open and Shut'

Even though many feel that these are 'open and shut' type cases, it won't be that easy! Merck executives have already stated that they will defend every case and to be fair, Merck withdrew Vioxx as soon as it learned of the adverse side effects. The majority of those taking Vioxx suffered from arthritis or other joint related problems and tended to be older. This same group of people are statistically more susceptible to stroke and heart attack, so proving that a heart problem was solely caused by Vioxx could be difficult.

Further complicating the picture is the fact that Merck has just $630 Million in product liability for Vioxx claims. It is therefore a possibility that some claimants will find that the 'well has run dry'.

Also posing a potential problem is the proposed bill, supported by President Bush, that would severely limit the pharmaceutical companies' liability in class action suits if the drug in question had met all FDA requirements.

Vioxx Lawyers in Advertising Boom!

2005-01-06T08:20:00.000-08:00

Trial lawyers throughout the U.S. have become increasingly aggressive in their attempts to attract Vioxx clients. With an estimated 20 million Vioxx users, the number of potential clients is far greater than any other class action lawsuit.

The number of potential clients combined with the huge possible financial windfall has caused lawyers everywhere to increase their advertising expenditures. This is most evident on the internet where law firms are building web sites and buying ads at a rapid pace. Lawyers are finding that the most cost effective way to reach potential clients is on the net. The cause of all this activity - Vioxx class action suits.

Bush Legislation Protects Drug Companies

2005-01-05T09:08:00.000-08:00

A medical malpractice bill that has passed the house but not the Senate has the support of President Bush. Bush has often praised the bill because it would stop the many frivolous lawsuits filed against doctors every year. What he doesn't often speak about are the provisions in the bill that would protect pharmaceutical companies.

Merck, the makers of Vioxx and Pfizer Inc. the maker of Celebrex would appear to be the two largest beneficiaries of this legislation. Vioxx was pulled from the market this past September and hundreds of Vioxx lawsuits have already been filed. Pfizer Inc. has not recalled Celebrex but has suspended all advertising. Several Celebrex lawsuits have been filed including one in Canada and one in Illinois.

Vioxx and Celebrex Lawsuits in Jeopardy

It is believed that both Merck and Pfizer would be shielded from punitive damages if this legislation becomes law. In fact, all pharmaceutical comapanies would be protected as long as they had met all FDA standards.

The exact extent of the protection allowed is not known however the position of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is perfectly clear. Their president, Todd A. Smith said,

"President Bush unashamedly advocates legislation that would protect insurance industry profits and prohibit any punishment for the makers of dangerous drugs like Vioxx."

For more information see Vioxx Lawsuits