Jurors Side with Merck on Vioxx

Jurors sided with Merck in a Vioxx trial late last week, according to a recent news article.

The case concerned a 52-year-old Illinois woman named Patty Schwaller. Patty, an obese woman with diabetes and high blood pressure, had been taking Vioxx for nearly 2 years when she died from a heart attack in 2003.

The jurors agreed with Merck that it was likely her poor health and not the painkiller Vioxx that led to Patty’s killer heart attack.

As far as future Vioxx lawsuits go, there are still 27,000 personal injury lawsuits and 265 potential class-action lawsuits in the works, so stay tuned because there’s much more to come…

Merck Loses Second Vioxx Trial

After a long silence, finally there’s news about Vioxx (from a AP article published today):

NEW ORLEANS - Merck & Co. lost the second federal trial over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx on Thursday and must pay $51 million to a retired FBI agent who had a heart attack after taking the drug for more than two years, a jury decided.

The jury found that Merck & Co. “knowingly misrepresented or failed to disclose” information about the drug to retired FBI agent Gerald Barnett’s doctors. It said Barnett should get $50 million in compensatory damages.

Then, after hearing more arguments, the jurors added a $1 million punitive damage award, finding that Merck “acted in wanton, malicious, willful or reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights.”

So, the first federal trial was held twice — the first deadlocked and was declared a mistrial, while the second ended with a verdict for Merck.

What made this one different? It could have been the fact that the jury was made up of 8 older men who sympathized with the plaintiff (himself an older man).

Two federal Merck trials down, thousands of federal Merck trials to go…

Vioxx Plaintiff Gets $13.5 Million

…but, of course, Merck plans to appeal.

The 77-year-old man, who blamed his heart attack on Merck’s Vioxx, won $9 million today after already being awarded $4.5 million, bringing his grand total to $13.5 million.

This was the 6th trial over Vioxx, and “the first involving people alleging use of 18 months or more.” That 18-month benchmark is significant because “the study that prompted Merck to voluntarily withdraw the drug found that its risks doubled after 18 months’ use.”

In its only other loss in a Vioxx case, Merck was ordered last August to pay $253 million to the widow of a man who died after taking the drug for a short time.

Merck is gong to face almost 10,000 more cases in state and federal courts, and the company “has vowed to try them one at a time.” That’s gotta be one happy (and rich) team of lawyers…

Source: Yahoo News

Vioxx class action in Australia

Australians are launching a class action against Merck over Vioxx:

More than 400 Australians have launched a class action for personal damages from the manufacturers of the anti-arthritis drug, Vioxx.

The drug has been found to increase the risk of stroke and heart attacks, and was globally recalled in September last year.

Law firm Slater and Gordon is bringing the class action against Merck and Co, the American manufacturer of Vioxx and its Australian subsidiary.

Special counsel Richard Meeran says clients have a compelling case for compensation.

“This drug is a defective drug - it increases the risk of heart attack and stroke by a very significant amount,” he said.

“It had been marketed and promoted by the company as being safer than the the alternative drug, when in fact the opposite seems to have been the case.”

Mr Meeran says there is evidence the drug’s manufacturers knew Vioxx posed a risk.

“Vioxx was recalled last year at the end of September by the company because the company’s own study has shown that users of Vioxx has a significantly increased rate of cardiovascular problems,” he said.

“We’re not seeking specific amounts for any body - as I said the amounts will vary and I wouldn’t want to put figures on the amounts of damages for that reason because they’ll be so variable,” he said.

Source: ABC News Online

Vioxx Mistrial

The first federal lawsuit case against Merek & Co. has ended in a mistrial. Jury members were unable to reach a verdict. This is good and bad news for Merck & Co:

Judge declares mistrial in federal Vioxx case
Jurors deadlocked in federal trial against pain drug maker Merck

Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET Dec. 12, 2005
HOUSTON - A judge declared a mistrial Monday in the first federal lawsuit over the once-popular painkiller Vioxx after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Merck & Co. emerged from its third Vioxx trial Monday with a hung jury when the panel failed, in about 18 hours of deliberations over three days, to side with the drug maker or with the wife of a 53-year-old Florida man who died after taking Vioxx for about a month.

The mistrial means Merck, which already had a one and one record in Vioxx litigation, was unable to gain any momentum in its battle against thousands of other expected lawsuits related to the drug, which was withdrawn from the market last year after being linked to cardiovascular problems.

Full Article

More Vioxx Drama

Vioxx’s stocks have taken a huge hit after new allegations were published by the New England Journal of Medicine:

Vioxx jury deliberates amid new blow

CHICAGO (Reuters) - As the first federal jury deliberates whether Merck & Co.’s painkiller Vioxx contributed to a Florida man’s death, investors on Friday digested new claims that the battered company withheld key data about the drug’s dangers.

Merck’s shares fell nearly 2 percent to $29.11 in New York Stock Exchange trading after the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday claimed Merck deleted information about three heart attacks from a key Vioxx study submitted for publication.

Recent investing newsWabash National Corporation Renews Stockholder Rights Plan Feinstein calls for answers on treatment of detainees US warns on danger of trade talks failure Merkel gaffe forces US into damage limitation mode Mandelson offers bleak outlook for WTO deal
Merck said it disclosed the events to U.S. regulators in 2000 and publicly in 2001, including in several press releases.

While analysts said the events do not change conclusions of the study, which showed Vioxx carried a higher risk of heart attack than a common painkiller, the negative headlines represent another blow for the stock and are likely to be used as fodder in future cases against Merck.

Citigroup analyst George Grofik, in a research note, said it’s not yet clear whether the federal jury deliberating in Houston has seen news reports of the journal’s allegations.

“While the data is not new, clearly this editorial puts a spotlight on Merck’s conduct and potentially provides plaintiff attorneys with additional fodder,” said Grofik, who maintained his “hold” rating on the stock.

According to the Wall Street Journal, plaintiffs in the trial filed a motion seeking a mistrial, citing the missing data from the study.

The paper reported the judge in the case, Eldon Fallon, said he will take the plaintiffs’ motion under advisement.

Judge Fallon’s staff declined to comment to Reuters on whether a mistrial motion was filed, as did both plaintiff and Merck lawyers.

The clerk of the court could not confirm whether such a motion had been filed.

Bank of America analyst Chris Schott, in a research note, said, the negative publicity “clearly does not help Merck as it works to defend itself against Vioxx litigation.”

Merck withdrew Vioxx in September 2004 after it was shown to double the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who took the drug for more than 18 months.

Since then, more than 6,000 lawsuits are pending against Merck in the United States claiming Vioxx caused heart attacks and deaths.

Full Article

Vioxx study data knowingly skewed

An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine claims that “authors of a study funded by Vioxx maker Merck & Co. failed to disclose in a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 that three additional patients in a clinical study suffered heart attacks while using the now-withdrawn painkiller,” according to AP Business writer Linda A. Johnson.

The editorial, written by the journal’s editor in chief, Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, executive editor Dr. Gregory D. Curfman and managing editor Stephen Morrissey, also alleges the study’s authors deleted other relevant data before submitting their article for publication.

“Taken together, these inaccuracies and deletions call into question the integrity of the data on adverse cardiovascular events in this article,” the doctors wrote. Excluding the three heart attacks “made certain calculations and conclusions in the article incorrect.”

For the rest of the article, click the above link.

News on the upcoming Vioxx trial

Vioxx users will challenge safety claims, according to Yahoo! News:

HOUSTON - Whether the once-popular painkiller Vioxx can be lethal if taken for just a few weeks will be the crux of the first federal trial concerning the drug’s safety, plaintiff’s lawyers said Wednesday.

Jere Beasley and Andy Birchfield, the Montgomery, Ala., lawyers representing the widow of a man who had a fatal heart attack a month after taking Vioxx, said they intend to skewer Vioxx-maker Merck & Co.’s contention that the drug can’t cause heart hazards unless taken for 1 1/2 years or more.

“The 18-month myth is something Merck has manufactured to avoid liability,” Birchfield said.

“Beasley and Birchfield aim to show a jury some of Merck’s own studies among 58 clinical trials conducted before Vioxx went on the market in 1999 that revealed increases in heart attacks or other cardiovascular problems after a few weeks’ use.”

Here’s some background:

The first federal case involves the May 2001 death of Richard “Dicky” Irvin, a 53-year-old manager of a wholesale seafood distributor in St. Augustine, Fla. He got a prescription for Vioxx from his son-in-law, an emergency room doctor, to alleviate back pain and had a fatal heart attack about a month later.

His wife, Evelyn Irvin Plunkett, contends the drug caused a blood clot to form in one of his coronary arteries, leading to the heart attack. She also alleges that Merck knew years before Vioxx went on the market that the drug could be dangerous but downplayed those concerns to profit from the $2.5 billion seller.

Merck claims in court papers that Vioxx couldn’t be responsible for Irvin’s death because he took the drug for such a short time. The company also says it believed Vioxx to be safe until the 2004 study prompted the drug’s withdrawal.

Birchfield said plaintiffs expect Merck to focus on Irvin’s autopsy, which notes he had moderate to severe clogged arteries. Birchfield said one of those coronary arteries, near where the clot was found, was 60 percent blocked.

Class action kings move to NY

TheLawyer.com is reporting that “Houston-based Lanier Law Firm has launched in New York with four lawyers, with the aim of expanding the presence to eclipse its headquarters within three years.”

Officially opened today (16 November), the mid-town Manhattan office of the class action specialists will be overseen by resident head Richard Meadow, who will be supported by three attorneys and five administration staff.

Founding partner Mark Lanier said the firm hoped to rapidly increase the size of the office, with the “expectation to have that eclipse the size of our Houston office within three years.” The Houston office consists of 24 lawyers and 50 additional support staff.

Lanier plans to divide his time between Houston and New York to facilitate this expansion, which will focus on increasing the firm’s client litigation practice, including pharmaceutical, product liability and toxic tort claims.

The New York office is the firm’s second presence, after its Houston headquarters was launched in 1990.

Lanier shot to fame earlier this year, after winning a $253m verdict (the first in the US) against Merck & Co, the maker of Vioxx, an arthritis drug that was found to increase the risk of heart attack.

Next Vioxx case will be tough for Merck, lawyers say

AP Business Writer Linda A. Johnson reports:

TRENTON, N.J. - The next Vioxx product-liability case to come to trial in New Jersey will likely be a tougher battle for manufacturer Merck & Co., which last week got its first courtroom victory in a case involving short-term use of the now-withdrawn painkiller.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, who is overseeing about 3,500 Vioxx lawsuits filed in New Jersey — half the suits filed to date — has told attorneys she wants the next group of trials to involve plaintiffs who took the drug for 18 months or more. Plaintiff lawyers said the judge appears to want to determine how such cases will play out in an attempt to encourage the settlement of some lawsuits.

Whitehouse Station-based Merck has admitted Vioxx doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes after use for 18 months or longer; it pulled the blockbuster arthritis pill from the market in September 2004 after its own research showed that.

Cases with such long-term use will be harder for Merck to defend, although plaintiffs still have the heavy burden of proving Vioxx caused them harm, plaintiff lawyers say.

“If there’s any case that should truly be indefensible, it’s the 18 months and over (case) because Merck has conceded that,” said lawyer Chris Seeger.

Cases involving long-term use of Vioxx make up about 60% of the cases on Higbee’s docket. One lawyer was quoted as saying he still thinks “cases involving short-term Vioxx use are winnable, partly because one Harvard study showed cardiac risks developed within 30 days of Vioxx use.”

Next Page »