Merck has settled a consumer class action and paid a $321.6 million criminal fine for selling Vioxx for uses that were not approved by the FDA. This was a result of Merck making false claims about the safety of Vioxx. Merck also agreed to pay $220 million in a civil settlement. Although Merck has not settled all of the cases, it has settled most of the lawsuits filed by consumers.
Merck’s aggressive legal defense
A new trial in the Midwest accuses Merck of misrepresenting the risks of Vioxx to consumers. Merck has vigorously denied any wrongdoing, including making false claims about the safety of the drug. However, in 2006, when the FDA delayed updating the Vioxx label, Merck’s sales representatives were instructed to rely on the Cardiovascular Card, which claimed that Vioxx protects the heart.
The case focuses on the deaths caused by Vioxx, and Merck’s aggressive legal defense is aimed at denying the liability of the drug. In the state court trial, a jury found that Merck was not responsible for an Idaho man’s heart attack, despite evidence that the drug caused a clot. The jury’s decision also strengthens Merck’s hand in future settlement negotiations.
A group of plaintiff’s lawyers has organized a package that lays out the key aspects of the Vioxx lawsuit, including a guide to pursuing a claim against Merck and a list of damaging documents and evidence. This package is offered on a contingency basis, meaning that the consumer pays nothing unless and until the lawsuit is successful. A pre-made trial package is offered at a small fee, and the price is contingent on the victorious outcome of the case.
In May 2000, Merck executives were made aware of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx. Despite this, the company did not slow down the drug’s development and marketing. A large clinical trial in 1999 found that approximately 88,000 people had suffered heart attacks after taking the drug. Many of these individuals had previous heart problems, but many did not. Ernst’s case was one of the first in the country and ended with a $253 million verdict for his surviving spouse.
In March 2005, Senator Chuck Grassley, the chair of the Senate Government Reform Committee, spoke about the need for the FDA to investigate the role Merck played in the promotion of Vioxx. The FDA found Merck negligent and released more than 20,000 pages of documents about Merck’s promotion of the drug. It was a reasonable move, and the lawsuit against Merck is ongoing.
Its aggressive legal defense
Merck & Co. won a high-stakes trial yesterday. The jury was swayed by Merck’s aggressive legal defense, and the pharmaceutical company increased its odds of surviving the Vioxx litigation wave. But the jury verdict is far from conclusive. It’s important to note that the jury award is still only a fraction of Merck’s total revenue in 2004.
Merck will argue that it adequately disclosed the risks of Vioxx to physicians and regulators. The company voluntarily recalled the drug in 2004, but there were still numerous lawsuits. In response to the lawsuits, Merck is seeking billions in damages. It’s unclear how this settlement will be resolved. However, Merck is stepping up its efforts to protect its reputation. A successful settlement will mean more profits for Merck, but the future of the company depends on how it deals with the litigation.
Merck’s aggressive legal defense has also come under fire after the Idaho man died of a heart attack after taking Vioxx for eight months. Merck was found not liable for his death, but a Texas jury found it in Merck’s favor earlier this year. If the case goes to trial, Merck will have a stronger bargaining position in settlement talks. In the meantime, Vioxx is being pulled from the market.
As a result, Merck is fighting the lawsuit because the FDA didn’t require Merck to present more data. This is inexcusable, and the FDA should be made to provide more information before Vioxx is approved for sale. Merck has also admitted that its decision to seek approval for the drug is too premature. It should have waited until after larger studies had concluded in the VIGOR trial before it launched.
Merck’s aggressive legal defense isn’t stopping lawsuits over Vioxx. In April 2016, the jury in Ernst v. Merck & Co. found Merck liable for the death of Robert Ernst, a 59-year-old marathon runner. The jury found Merck responsible for the death of the man and awarded Carol Ernst $253.4 million. While the plaintiff’s award is a win for Merck, the jury isn’t putting an end to the lawsuit.
