Contact A Lawyer
Near You

Contact us today for a complimentary consultation with a qualified attorney near you.

Familiar Arguments in Latest Vioxx Trial

March 7, 2006

As the latest Vioxx trial went underway, Merck & Co. found itself on familiar ground. Their lead attorney argued the drug company adequately examined Vioxx's safety, and injuries suffered from the plaintiffs were a result of heart disease, not Vioxx.

Lawyer Christy Jones said in her opening statement that Merck studied Vioxx for more than seven years and met all the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration before putting the drug on the market.

"It was one of the most, if not the most, studied pain relievers ever to go on the market except aspirin," Jones said.

Vioxx was approved in 1999 as a pain reliever for arthritis and osteoarthritis, which was less harsh on the stomach than other similar drugs. In 2004, Merck pulled Vioxx off the market after a study revealed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients who used the drug for longer than 18 months.

The fifth Vioxx trial involving plaintiffs, Thomas Cona, 59, and John McDarby, 77, will be of particular interest because it is the first trial that deals with long-term Vioxx use.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Lanier, in the Cona-McDarby trial grilled his first witness, Merck's marketing chief, David W. Anstice. Lanier criticized Merck's development and testing of Vioxx, saying it was dominated by marketing concerns rather than medical concerns since the company had to come up with a drug that would produce enough revenue to make up for their loss of six Merck drugs that were soon to come off patent.

Additionally, Lanier argued that his client, Cona, did suffer from heart disease, but the complications developed after using Vioxx for 22 months.

McDarby's attorney, Robert Gordon, told the jury that his client was a diabetic and would never have considered taking Vioxx if Merck had adequately warned of it's dangers.

In his opening statement, Gordon told the jurors that Merck sales representatives "falsely reassured" McDarby's doctor about the arthritis medication. In addition, Gordon argued that Vioxx was a contributing factor that led to McDarby's heart attack in 2003, which permanently disabled him.

Since reports of the serious injury and deaths associated with Vioxx were revealed, more that 9,650 Vioxx lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts. So far, only five have gone to trial. Merck has won two cases and lost one.

Contact us to learn more information about the dangers of Vioxx or to speak with a qualified attorney.

 

 

More Recent Defective Drug News

Contact a News Recall Lawyer