Vioxx Dangers

First Vioxx Trial Verdict and Cases Challenge 18-Month Damage Claim

On August 19, 2005, a jury in Angleton, Texas awarded $253.4 million in damages in the case of Ernst vs. Merck & Co. The final award, however, will not exceed $26.1 million due to Texas caps on punitive damages.

Robert Ernst, a marathon runner who died in his sleep at age 59, had taken Vioxx for less than seven months prior his death. In the precedent-setting trial, Mr. Ernst's family lawyers claimed that Merck knew that patients suffered increased heart problems after taking Vioxx yet deliberately withheld the information. Before the trial, drug giant Merck & Co. had maintained that Vioxx had nothing to do with Ernst's death. It is believed that this verdict will make it more difficult for Merck to prove that heart damage in Vioxx users only occurs in patients who have taken the drug for more than 18 months.

During the trial, the Ernst family attorney presented internal Merck documents that indicated that their own scientists were worried about the increased risk of heart attacks long before Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004. A leaked March 2000 communication between Merck & Co. scientists and the company's patent department privately sought to have Vioxx reformulated with an anti-clotting agent to reduce the risk of heart problems and strokes. In 2001, Merck filed an application with the U.S. Patent Office for a new version of Vioxx that combined it with a Thromboxane inhibitor. Unfortunately, Merck eventually dropped the project and the patent.

In late August, lawyers met with hundreds of Vioxx patients to plan more cases against Merck & Co. Before the trial, more than 4,000 cases were pending. That number is expected to increase significantly as cases are filed on behalf of patients who used the drug for less than 18 months.

The pool of plaintiffs is now viewed as virtually unlimited. Because of the verdict against Merck, upcoming trials are potentially heavily weighted toward plaintiffs.

A Boise, Idaho postal worker's case is scheduled for trial in September 2005. The postal worker had taken Vioxx for only two months prior to suffering a heart attack. Although he survived, he suffered permanent heart damage. The plaintiff blames Merck for the heart attack, but the drug giant contends that the man had blocked arteries. Merck had tried unsuccessfully to obtain a 45-day trial delay in this case, claiming that potential jurors would be biased as a result of the Texas trial.

In November, the first federal Vioxx case is slated to be heard. In that case, plaintiff Richard Irvin had only taken Vioxx for about a month before he died of a heart attack at age 53.

On August 26, 2005, Merck officials said that they will consider settling some Vioxx cases, specifically those where plaintiffs took the drug for at least 18 months and had low risks of cardiac problems.

If you or a loved one has been injured by Vioxx and would like additional information about your legal options, please contact us for a free case review.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

- Arava FAQs
- Meridia FAQs
- Prempro FAQs
- Vioxx FAQs