Vioxx Personal Injury Lawsuits

Personal injury attorneys representing clients who80 nations with sales exceeding $2.5 billion. Still, there
have allegedly been harmed by the prescription drugwere problems looming as ongoing tests conducted
Vioxx are congratulating themselves over a historicby Merck hinted of potential deadly side effects.
judgment rendered recently. On August 19, 2005, aAs early as 2001, the FDA recommended label
judge awarded the family of Bob Ernst $253.4 millionwarnings be put on prescriptions warning users of
due to his death from the drug. Vioxx, which hadpotential side effects. In addition, Merck was warned
been prescribed most often for arthritis pain, wasby the FDA to quit misleading physicians about
withdrawn globally by its maker, Merck, afterpotential side effects.
research trials showed it increased patients' chancesAs potential problems began to surface, they served
of a heart attack. Although Merck pulled the drug offas red flags to industry watchdogs, to the FDA, as
the market in September 2004, legal action againstwell as to personal injury attorneys who began to
this leading pharmaceutical giant will continue andgather evidence to show that Merck was negligent.
expand. Let's take a look at why Vioxx has becomeIndeed, web sites and advertising campaigns - meant
a litigation lightning rod.to inform and attract patients harmed by the drug -
In 1998 as Merck was running clinical trials for Vioxx,were launched and fairly soon the internet, radio,
company reports to the FDA stated that there weretelevision, and print media were flooded with
no cardiovascular signals apparent. This meant thatadvertisements asking those suspecting harm from
there were no telltale signs that the drug could causeVioxx to come forward.
heart problems for users. Later, however, it wasWith the September 2004 announcement that Merck
revealed that an internal study conducted by Merckwas withdrawing Vioxx, personal injury litigation was
around the same time - Study 090 - revealed seriouswell on its way to being established. By early 2005,
cardiovascular problems as compared to patients notthe first cases were filed and the Ernst case became
taking Vioxx. The study was never published bythe first Vioxx lawsuit to be settled.
Merck as the company insisted that it was not largeWrongful death lawsuits against Vioxx's maker,
enough to provide definitive data.Merck, are expected to increase as the result of the
The following year the FDA gave Vioxx its approvalErnst decision. Personal injury attorneys insist that
and the drug became the second nonsteroidalthousands of former Vioxx users and/or their families
anti-inflammatory medication [or COX-2 inhibitor] toare due compensation for Merck's neglect. It remains
hit the market. Celebrex, another problem drug, wasto be seen if juries will render judgments as large as
the first.the Ernst judgment and whether courts will uphold
Merck widely and thoroughly launched a marketingthese amounts. Nevertheless, it is certain that Merck
campaign upon the introduction of Vioxx to theis in for a long battle that will reach well beyond its
marketplace. Indeed, by 2003 the drug had enteredUS base.