How To Vioxx Class Action Lawsuits




Vioxx class action lawsuits stem from alleged reports of negative side effects due to consuming this drug. These negative side effects include stroke, blood clots, and heart attacks. Almost every Vioxx lawsuit is designed to gain funds related to suffering that the user experienced after being prescribed Vioxx. Though most cases are legitimate, substantial proof must be provided to win these cases. 1

Vioxx was approved in Canada in 1999, quickly becoming the country''s 10 th top selling drug. In 2003, more than 3.36 million prescriptions of Vioxx were filled, costing $194.4 million. After Merck announced Vioxx was being pulled off the market, two class action lawsuits were been filed on behalf of Canadians who used the popular arthritis drug prior to the recall announcement. 2

More than 700 class action lawsuits have been launched against Merck over heath risks associated with Vioxx since the drug was pulled from the market. Out of these 14 are class action lawsuits and are likely to lead to large payouts for the victims. 3

Vioxx was approved for use in 1999, and quickly became a blockbuster for Merck, with annual sales of $2.5 billion. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Vioxx off the market in 2004 after studies showed that people who took the drug had a higher risk for heart attack. The recall came after an analysis of patients using Vioxx linked the defective drug to more than 27,000 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths in the U.S. from 1999 through 2003. Since then, Vioxx the subject of 27,000 law suits filed by 47,000 plaintiffs as the result of Vioxx side effects. In addition, the company also faced 265 potential Vioxx class action lawsuits, and it has also been sued by several states in an effort to recoup the money state health programs spent on Vioxx prescriptions. 4

Merck had vowed to fight every Vioxx lawsuit individually, and it was having some mixed success. Of 11 Vioxx cases that have gone to trial so far, Merck had lost five. But the legal costs of defending so many Vioxx lawsuits have been substantial. Merck spent $160 million just in the third quarter to fight Vioxx lawsuits. The company also took several charges against its earnings to cover current and future Vioxx litigations costs, and it has set aside $720 million to cover the legal costs associated with these lawsuits. However, that amount did not cover any potential damage payments to Vioxx victims. 5

Merck pulled Vioxx on Sept. 30, 2004, after a study confirmed that it increased the risk of heart attack and stroke if taken for more than 18 months. Within days, the first of many class action lawsuits were filed across the country against Merck & Co. 6

As previously disclosed by Merck, 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. 7

In his presentation today on VIOXX litigation, Merck Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kenneth C. Frazier stated that the company will vigorously defend against VIOXX-related lawsuits, including taking cases to trial. He also said Merck will oppose any efforts to seek class-action treatment with respect to the personal injury lawsuits because there is no commonality to the cases. "Merck voluntarily withdrew VIOXX from the marketplace and believes the company has acted appropriately at all times," Mr. Frazier stated. 8

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 (MDL) 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. 9

This drug was pulled from the market in 2004 when Vioxx side effects became known. Specifically, research showed that using Vioxx increased the risk factors for heart attacks and strokes. Since that time, Merck has been hit with 27,000 Vioxx class action lawsuits. Those suits have included claims that Merck failed to warn about these potential Vioxx side effects. 10

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. 11

At the time that Vioxx and other Cox-2 selective NSAIDs were approved, it was hoped that they would have a lower risk of gastrointestinal ulcers and bleeding than other NSAIDs (such as ibuprofen and naproxen). Vioxx is the only NSAID demonstrated to have a lower rate of these side effects. 12

Merck contacted FDA on September 27, 2004, to request a meeting and to advise the agency that the long-term study of Vioxx in patients at increased risk of colon polyps had been halted. Merck and FDA officials met the next day, September 28, and during that meeting the company informed FDA of its decision to remove Vioxx from the market voluntarily. 13

In June 2000, Merck submitted to FDA a safety study called VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research) that found an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes, in patients taking Vioxx compared to patients taking naproxen. After reviewing the results of the VIGOR study and other available data from controlled clinical trials, FDA consulted with its Arthritis Advisory Committee in February 2001 regarding the clinical interpretation of this new safety information. In April 2002, FDA implemented labeling changes to reflect the findings from the VIGOR study. The labeling changes included information about the increase in risk of cardiovascular events, including heart attack and stroke. 14

Recently other studies in patients taking Vioxx have also suggested an increased risk of cardiovascular events. FDA was in the process of carefully reviewing these results, to determine whether further labeling changes were warranted, when Merck informed the agency of the results of the new trial and its decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market. 15