Active Mass Tort and Class Action Vioxx Lawsuits
If you or a loved one has experienced a serious injury such as a heart attack or stroke after taking Vioxx, fill out this simple form for a FREE case evaluation.
Northern District Illinois Class Action
1992 MERCK RELEASES THEIR 16TH ED. OF THE MERCK MANUAL, CLAIMING
"THROMBAXANE A-2 (TX A2) IS A MAJOR COMPOUND IN THE CLOTTING PROCESS, AND IS A
POTENT PLATELET AGGREGATOR AND VASOCONSTRICTOR. view
1999 MERCK’S NEW DRUG VIOXX, A COX-2
SELECTIVE INHIBITOR APPROVED FOR LEGAL USE. SELECTIVELY REDUCING COX-2 DISRUPTS
THE BALANCE BETWEEN TX A2 AND PGI.
1999 MERCK RELEASES THEIR 17TH
EDITION OF THE MERCK MANUAL WITHOUT THE AFOREMENTIONED WARNING ABOUT TX A2. view
JUNE, 2000 MERCK SUBMITTED THEIR VIGOR
STUDY FINDINGS TO THE FDA. FDA CONCLUDES THAT VIOXX IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN
COMPETATOR NAPROXEN, BASED ON THE STUDY.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION WARNS MERCK "YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN A PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN
FOR VIOXX THAT MINIMIZES THE POTENTIALLY SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR FINDINGS THAT
WERE OBSERVED IN THE VIGOR STUDY, AND THUS MISREPRESENTS THE SAFETY PROFILE FOR
VIOXX. view
2001: MERCK INCREASES VIOXX DIRECT CONSUMER ADVERTISING INCREASES
BY 27% FROM 2000 TO $166 MILLION IN 2001.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
MERCK RECALLS VIOXX DUE TO A NEARLY THREEFOLD INCREASE OF THE RISK OF
A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE ASSOCIATED WITH LONG TERM USE OF THE DRUG. view
OCTOBER 5,
2004: CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST MERCK. ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING:
- STRICT LIABILITY: THE DEFENDENTS USED VIOXX AS DIRECTED, INTENDED AND MANUFACTURED BY MERCK AND THEREFORE MERCK IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS SUFFERED AS A RESULT.
- NEGLIGENCE: MERCK FAILED TO ADEQUETLY TEST VIOXX AND DID NOT PROPERLY ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE DRUG. MERCK FURTHER FAILED TO ADEQUETLY WARN PATIENTS ABOUT THE SIDE EFFECTS AND VIOLATED LEGAL REGULATIONS ON ITS LABELS.
- MEDICAL MONITORING: MERCK, BEING LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGES, IS ALSO LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO MONITOR AND TEST THE PLAINTIFFS TO ENSURE THEIR SAFETY.
- PERSONAL INJURY: SEEKING COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF HAVING TAKEN VIOXX
- MEDICAL MONITORING: SEEKING TREATMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR MONITORING OF POTENTIAL INJURIES.
- REIMBURSEMENT: SEEKING REFUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF VIOXX
Atlantic County New Jersey Mass Tort
JUNE 6, 2003 JUDGE CAROL E. HIGBEE ORDERED THAT ALL CURRENT SIMILAR LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST MERCK & CO., INC. SURROUNDING THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG VIOXX ARE TO BE CENTRALIZED AND TRIED TOGETHER IN THE NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT WHERE MERCK IS HEADQUARTERED. THESE CASES ARE NOT CONSOLIDATED; EACH CASE REMAINS SEPARATE, BUT THE LAWYERS TRY THEM AT ONCE TOGETHER. viewOCTOBER 20, 2003 THE LEGAL PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSITIONS AND CONFIDENTIALITY ARE LAID OUT FOR THE LAWYERS. PRIVACY IS ASSURED BOTH FOR TRADE SECRETS OF MERCK AND ALSO FOR THE MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS IN THE LAWSUIT. view
FEBRUARY 20, 2004 MERCK’S LAWYERS ARE GIVEN ONE WEEK TO TURN OVER TO THE PLAINTIFF’S LAWYERS DOCUMENTS REGARDING PATIENTS, INTERNAL MEETING MINUTES, PRESS RELEASES AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION. DEPOSITIONS ARE GRANTED AND THE NEXT HEARING IN COURT IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 12. view
MAY 12, 2004 SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES FOR DISCOVERY ARE SET. view
JULY 8, 2004 LAWYERS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL NO. 68 WELFARE FUND OFFICIALLY ALLEGE THAT MERCK WILLFULLY AND ILLEGALLY MISREPRESENTED THE SAFETY OF VIOXX IN COMPARISON TO CHEAPER SIMILAR DRUGS RESULTING IN THAT AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS AGREEING TO RECOMMEND VIOXX FOR ITS MEMBERS. MERCK’S LAWYERS ATTEMPT TO CONTEST THE COMPLAINT, TO NO AVAIL.
SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 MERCK’S LAWYERS MOVE TO PREVENT THE PLAINTIFFS FROM OBTAINING RELATED RECORDS FROM PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL. THE JUDGE GRANTS THE MOTION ON GROUNDS THAT ANY RELEVANT INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED THROUGH OTHER LEGAL PROCEDURES.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 MERCK’S LAWYERS MOVE TO DISMISS ALL PLAINTIFFS NOT IN NEW JERSEY WHERE THE TRIAL IS BEING HELD. SINCE MERCK IS HEADQUARTERED IN NEW JERSEY, JUDGE HIGBEE RULED THAT THE NEW JERSEY COURTS HAVE SUFFICIENT JURISDICTION AND PARTIALLY FOR THE SAKE OF THE LOGISTICS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM, ALL THESE COMPARABLE CASES WILL REMAIN IN THIS COURT.
CURRENT STATUS:
- MERCK RECALLED THE DRUG VIOXX
- 175 LAWSUITS FILED THUS FAR IN THE ATLANTIC COUNTY LAWSUITS
- ADDITIONAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2004
- DISCOVERY SCHEDULED TO END BY THE END OF 2005
LAWSUITS
Currently there are both Class Action and Mass Tort lawsuits filed against Merck because of Vioxx.
Click Here to see the difference between Class Action and Mass Tort
Weitz & Luxenberg can help you evaluate your Vioxx claim
Weitz & Luxenberg is now accepting clients who have been injured by Vioxx. If you have taken Vioxx and have suffered a stroke, heart attack, or other cardiovascular event, please contact Weitz & Luxenberg for a free case evaluation. You can fill out a simple form, call us at 1 (800) 476-6070, or email us at clientrelations@weitzlux.com.
Weitz & Luxenberg is no longer accepting Vioxx cases.
see also:
Class Action V Mass Tort
Need a Vioxx Lawsuit? Know to Choose between Class Action V Mass TortClass Action V Mass Tort - Know the difference for your Vioxx lawsuit
Links & Numbers
Looking for something? All important Vioxx links and numbers are hereA compilation of necessary Links and Numbers all Vioxx users will need
Frequently Asked Questions
Are you at risk? Here are Frequently Asked Questions regarding Vioxx A list of some of the Frequently Asked Questions regarding Vioxx
