|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
Merck Could Get Hit Even Harder In Next Vioxx Suits |
|||||||||||||
|
August 22, 2005
Lawyers for Ernst’s widow Carol were able to convince the jury that Vioxx was to blame for the 59-year-old’s death, even though the well-publicized health risk is for heart attack and stroke. In addition, the jury found that Merck had acted in “conscious indifference” in its marketing of the drug. Jurors quoted by The Wall Street Journal said it took them less than an hour to dispense with claims that Vioxx was not responsible for Ernst's deaths. Jurors said that, more than medical details, they were outraged by what they saw as Merck's cover-up of the risks associated with Vioxx. Already, there are over 4,000 pending lawsuits against Merck for deaths and injury linked to Vioxx. Legal experts says those who suffered heart attack or stroke should have an easier time making their case, even if the Ernst award ends up being reduced. Next up is the case of Michael Humeston, a New Jersey postal worker who had been taking Vioxx for two months before suffering a heart attack in 2001. He survived, but his case argues he suffered debilitating permanent heart disease. Attorneys in the Ernst case presented the jury with reams of documents, suggesting the company was aware of concerns about the safety of Vioxx but ignored them because the drug was so profitable. Legal experts say the Ernst case has provided other plaintiffs a blueprint for making their cases against the drug manufacturer. Meanwhile, Merck may have problems outside the courtroom. In May a Congressional committee held hearings on Merck’s marketing practices, producing a number of documents, including written guidelines for "detailers," the sales representatives who visit doctors to promote drug company's products. According to those documents, Merck's detailers were instructed to make eye contact with doctors while firmly shaking their hand. More significantly, when doctors asked about Vioxx' increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke, the detailers were instructed to give them a pamphlet written by Merck's marketing department. The pamphlet claimed that Vioxx was eight times safer for heart patients than similar painkillers. It omitted Merck's only findings that Vioxx produced a fivefold increase in heart attack and stroke risk compared with naproxen, another popular pain killer. Report Your Experience
|
|||||||||||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|