Vioxx Lawyer and Vioxx Lawsuits: Allegations Made Against Merck

The prescription drug Vioxx was developed, manufactured and sold by Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck") to over 20 million persons worldwide. Vioxx was prescribed for relief of pain and inflammation (swelling and soreness) of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, management of short-term pain, treatment of menstrual pain, and treatment of migraine headaches.

In lawsuits filed against Merck by Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel, Vioxx patients allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and negligently sold Vioxx as a safe prescription medication when, in fact, Merck knew that it was not safe and that Vioxx caused serious medical problems, and, in certain patients, catastrophic injuries and death.

Vioxx Federal Court Lawsuit

Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has been assigned to hear all pretrial proceedings in Vioxx lawsuits against Merck filed in federal court. To read the latest news on the federal lawsuits, please visit the official court website for MDL No. 1657, http://vioxx.laed.uscourts.gov/Default.htm.

Factual Background on the Drug Vioxx

Vioxx is the brand name of rofecoxib, a Cox-2 inhibitor. Cox-1 and Cox-2 inhibitors are members of a class of drugs known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ("NSAIDs") used for pain relief. Vioxx contains cyclooxygenase 2 ("Cox-2") inhibitory properties, that means that it inhibits an enzyme to control pain. Generally, NSAIDs prevent the formation of fatty acid cyclooxygenases, certain enzymes, of which there are two known types ("Cox-1" and "Cox-2").

Vioxx, unlike the other drugs in the class of NSAIDs, is generally different from the other NSAIDs because it is solely a Cox-2 inhibitor. And, Vioxx, unlike the other members of the NSAIDs class, contributes to the aggregation of blood platelets, and thereby contributes to hypertension and clotting and can, in certain patients, cause catastrophic adverse side effects such as myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) which can be either full-blown or silent, ischemic strokes, and deep vein thrombosis.

Specific Allegations of Misconduct Against Merck

In the Vioxx lawsuits against Merck, plaintiffs allege the following:

Vioxx Dangers & Lawsuits Timeline
Timeline of events in the Vioxx recall and litigation

FDA Resources & Advisories
Vioxx warning letters and Vioxx advisories from the FDA

Vioxx Lawsuits
Information on Vioxx injury lawsuits

FDA Q&A on Vioxx
Questions & Answers about Vioxx from the FDA

	Our lawyers have years of experience successfully representing clients in personal injury cases.
	There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.
	In death and serious injury cases, we are pleased to visit you where you live, at no cost, to discuss your legal rights and answer your questions.
	We have retained product safety and medical experts nationwide to assist our clients with their claims.

Merck knew and had reason to know of serious adverse events occurring in patients who took Vioxx at single dose of 25 mg or at a double dose of 50 mg each day for durations of time from five (5) days to eighteen (18) months or more. Merck failed to advise the FDA, the medical community, and the patients about these dangerous side effects incident to Vioxx use.
Vioxx was promoted and advertised by Merck directly to consumers and to medical care providers as a pain reliever, similar to Ibuprofen and Aleve, but without any of the known side effects. Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Celebrex and the other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory pain relievers can, in certain patients, cause damage to the mucus membrane of the gut with long term use. Merck advertised, marketed and promoted Vioxx as a safe alternative that would not have the same deleterious and painful impact on the gut but was just as effective for pain relief.
Medical care providers and consumers relied on Merck's promise that Vioxx was a safe alternative, easy to use, and perfect for long term use. As a result, Merck sold millions of prescriptions of Vioxx worldwide and in the United States.
Signs of Vioxx's risks of serious adverse events emerged soon after the FDA approved Vioxx for sale on May 20, 1999. That year, Merck sponsored a clinical study known as the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research Study (the "VIGOR study") to obtain information regarding clinically meaningful gastrointestinal events and, purportedly, to develop a large controlled database for overall safety assessment. At the conclusion of the VIGOR study, it was reported that serious cardiovascular events occurred in 101 patients who took Vioxx as compared to 46 patients who took Naproxen, an over-the-counter NSAID.
As a result of the VIGOR study, it was reported that myocardial infarctions occurred in twenty (20) patients in the Vioxx treatment group as opposed to only four (4) patients in the Naproxen treatment group.
Merck's marketing strategy began in the 1990s. Merck began to aggressively market and sell their product by falsely misleading potential users such as the consumer Plaintiffs about the products and by failing to protect the consumers from serious dangers which Merck knew or should have known would result from use of Vioxx.
Merck wildly and successfully blitz-marketed Vioxx in the U.S. by undertaking an advertising campaign extolling the virtues of Vioxx in order to induce widespread use of Vioxx. This direct-to-consumer advertising campaign consisted of advertisements, promotional literature to be placed in the offices of doctors and other health care providers, HMOs, and promotional materials provided directly to potential Vioxx users themselves.
The advertising campaign as a whole sought to create the image, impression and belief that the use of Vioxx was safe for adults, had fewer side-effects and adverse reactions than other pain relief medications and would not interfere with daily life, even though Merck knew that these representations were false. Furthermore, Merck had no reasonable grounds to believe that any of these representations were true.
Merck purposefully misrepresented, understated and otherwise downplayed the serious health hazards and risks associated with long-term Vioxx use -- exactly that for which Vioxx was most often prescribed.
As a result of Merck's advertising and marketing efforts, and the misrepresentations concerning Vioxx, Vioxx continued to be pervasively prescribed throughout the U.S. until its market withdrawal.
If Plaintiffs had known the risks and dangers associated with Vioxx, Plaintiffs would never have taken Vioxx and consequently would never had been threatened by and subject to its catastrophic side effects.

About Lieff Cabraser

Founded in 1972, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is an over fifty attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. For the last five years, the National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the top 20 plaintiffs’ law firms in America.

For our personal injury cases, we bring a team of experienced lawyers. Each client is assigned an individual lawyer. In addition, we have on staff multiple nurses, legal assistants, scientific analysts and case clerks to assist the attorneys. To learn more about our firm, click here.

Trademark Notice: Personal Injury Lawyer America is an electronic newsletter from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Lieff Cabraser represents clients in a wide range of cases, including personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Our personal injury attorneys | lawyers are committed to providing the very best representation and support possible for our clients. This website provides information on the legal rights of the injured and the latest news on product defects and related lawsuits.

     Lieff Cabraser is not affiliated in any way with any trademark owner. The use of any trademarks on this site is for product identification and information purposes only.
     About Lieff Cabraser: We have offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. Our lawyers have represented clients in personal injury, wrongful death and rollover crashes and product defect lawsuits across America, including residents of Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming.
     Among the cases our personal injury attorneys are prosecuting are the Medtronic heart lead recall, the AMO contact lens solution recall, the Peter Pan peanut butter recall, Guidant pacemaker defects, SUV rollover accidents, popcorn workers lung injuries, and Ford switch fires.
     Disclaimer: The hiring of legal professionals is an important decision that should not be based on advertising alone. Please read our disclaimer.

Information Network: Guidant, Ortho Evra,
Car Accidents, Aviation Law, 15-Passenger
Van Accidents, SUV Rollover Crashes
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP