RELATED SEARCHES
Sponsored Vioxx Settlements Results:
Vioxx Lawsuit Settlements: Medication, Vioxx Recall And Heart Attacks
By:
Published: August 31, 2007
Few will argue that modern pharmaceutical medicine has been able to accomplish milestones in human survival and health. Yet drugs, as with everything else developed by human beings, are not always perfect and can potentially harm as much as they can help. When this happens, it is the indisputable obligation of the drugmakers to recompense any affected individuals.
Vioxx, a medication formulated to help relieve the pain associated with arthritis, is one such controversial drug. Since 2005, Vioxx has been blamed for causing heart attacks in many arthritis patients. The consequent Vioxx settlements have resulted in compensation for many of the injured parties. As the manufacturers of Vioxx, Merck and Co. are financially responsible for these remunerations.
Merck and Co. issued a Vioxx recall from all of its markets all over the world on September 30, 2004. The FDA has since been able to show that the class of drugs which Vioxx belongs to, COX 2 selective NSAIDs, have the potential to cause heart attacks, or "serious thrombotic cardiovascular adverse events," as they call them. Dr. Peter Kim, the President of the Merck Research Labs, has openly admitted these reasons for the Vioxx recall, therefore also admitting the various Vioxx settlements and lawsuits are justified. However, Merck believes that it does have reasonable grounds for defending itself, and declines to discuss individual cases of Vioxx settlements and lawsuits.
Before the Vioxx recall and Vioxx settlements, the medication had been earning $2.5 billion per year for the Merck company. Now, there have been over 10,000 litigations regarding heart attacks caused by the drug, although the FDA believes that nearly 140,000 Americans may have suffered harm. In some cases in which a Vioxx lawsuit has been brought to court, Merck has been able to successfully argue that there was no proof of Vioxx causing heart attacks in many of its patients. However, many bringing forth a Vioxx lawsuit have been able to convince their juries their consumption of Vioxx and their subsequent heart attacks had a positive correlation, hence resulting in a Vioxx settlement.
Such was the result in the lawsuit of John McDarby of New Jersey, who received $4.5 million for his Vioxx settlement. One Texas jury granted $229 million in one of the Vioxx settlements for an actual death caused by the drug. The evidence for the connection was substantiated by the victim's pathologist. Before Vioxx, the patient had been a marathon runner and fitness trainer, and presumably in very strong health. For this reason, this example of Vioxx settlements ended with a large pay out.
According to Martin & Jones, attorneys who offer their services for Vioxx settlements, part of the problem behind all these Vioxx settlements is the time required to bring a new drug to the public market is far too short. This allows a drug-making company to sell its products long before sufficient testing has been done to prove their safety and effectiveness. This hastiness alone warrants many more Vioxx settlements than have actually been awarded as yet - understandable to an angry public which objects to being human "guinea pigs."
Since these Vioxx settlements have been repeatedly appearing in news headlines, a study has since discovered the reason why Vioxx has killed and injured so many. The very ingredient which made it so effective for arthritic pain had a dangerous unforeseen side effect - it bolstered the manufacture of a bodily protein which caused unnecessary blood clotting - hence the legitimacy of Vioxx settlements.
For many of the arthritis patients who have brought forth a Vioxx lawsuit, large Vioxx settlements are justly deserved. However, because there are so many people demanding Vioxx settlements, Merck refuses to address every one of them individually in a court case. So the demand for Vioxx settlements may go on for years to come.
Sources:
"Home." Merck - Vioxx. 1995-2007. Merck & Co., Inc. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx.com/rofecoxib/vioxx/consumer/inde x.jsp.
"Frequently Asked Questions." Merck - Vioxx. 1995-2007. Merck & Co., Inc. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx.com/rofecoxib/vioxx/consumer/faq. jsp.
"Study Points to Cause of Vioxx Heart Risk." Forbes. 27 Aug. 2007. Forbes.com, LLC. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hsco ut/2007/08/27/hscout607663.html.
"Jury Awards 4.5 Million in Vioxx verdict Against Merck." Reuters. 5 April 2006. Reuters. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx-recall-lawsuit.com/news/verdict.p df.
"Vioxx and FDA Regulations." Martin & Jones. 2005. Martin & Jones. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx-recall-lawsuit.com/fda.htm.
"Vioxx Lawsuit." Martin & Jones. 2005. Martin & Jones. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx-recall-lawsuit.com/lawsuit.htm.
Vioxx, a medication formulated to help relieve the pain associated with arthritis, is one such controversial drug. Since 2005, Vioxx has been blamed for causing heart attacks in many arthritis patients. The consequent Vioxx settlements have resulted in compensation for many of the injured parties. As the manufacturers of Vioxx, Merck and Co. are financially responsible for these remunerations.
Merck and Co. issued a Vioxx recall from all of its markets all over the world on September 30, 2004. The FDA has since been able to show that the class of drugs which Vioxx belongs to, COX 2 selective NSAIDs, have the potential to cause heart attacks, or "serious thrombotic cardiovascular adverse events," as they call them. Dr. Peter Kim, the President of the Merck Research Labs, has openly admitted these reasons for the Vioxx recall, therefore also admitting the various Vioxx settlements and lawsuits are justified. However, Merck believes that it does have reasonable grounds for defending itself, and declines to discuss individual cases of Vioxx settlements and lawsuits.
Before the Vioxx recall and Vioxx settlements, the medication had been earning $2.5 billion per year for the Merck company. Now, there have been over 10,000 litigations regarding heart attacks caused by the drug, although the FDA believes that nearly 140,000 Americans may have suffered harm. In some cases in which a Vioxx lawsuit has been brought to court, Merck has been able to successfully argue that there was no proof of Vioxx causing heart attacks in many of its patients. However, many bringing forth a Vioxx lawsuit have been able to convince their juries their consumption of Vioxx and their subsequent heart attacks had a positive correlation, hence resulting in a Vioxx settlement.
Such was the result in the lawsuit of John McDarby of New Jersey, who received $4.5 million for his Vioxx settlement. One Texas jury granted $229 million in one of the Vioxx settlements for an actual death caused by the drug. The evidence for the connection was substantiated by the victim's pathologist. Before Vioxx, the patient had been a marathon runner and fitness trainer, and presumably in very strong health. For this reason, this example of Vioxx settlements ended with a large pay out.
According to Martin & Jones, attorneys who offer their services for Vioxx settlements, part of the problem behind all these Vioxx settlements is the time required to bring a new drug to the public market is far too short. This allows a drug-making company to sell its products long before sufficient testing has been done to prove their safety and effectiveness. This hastiness alone warrants many more Vioxx settlements than have actually been awarded as yet - understandable to an angry public which objects to being human "guinea pigs."
Since these Vioxx settlements have been repeatedly appearing in news headlines, a study has since discovered the reason why Vioxx has killed and injured so many. The very ingredient which made it so effective for arthritic pain had a dangerous unforeseen side effect - it bolstered the manufacture of a bodily protein which caused unnecessary blood clotting - hence the legitimacy of Vioxx settlements.
For many of the arthritis patients who have brought forth a Vioxx lawsuit, large Vioxx settlements are justly deserved. However, because there are so many people demanding Vioxx settlements, Merck refuses to address every one of them individually in a court case. So the demand for Vioxx settlements may go on for years to come.
Sources:
"Home." Merck - Vioxx. 1995-2007. Merck & Co., Inc. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx.com/rofecoxib/vioxx/consumer/inde x.jsp.
"Frequently Asked Questions." Merck - Vioxx. 1995-2007. Merck & Co., Inc. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx.com/rofecoxib/vioxx/consumer/faq. jsp.
"Study Points to Cause of Vioxx Heart Risk." Forbes. 27 Aug. 2007. Forbes.com, LLC. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hsco ut/2007/08/27/hscout607663.html.
"Jury Awards 4.5 Million in Vioxx verdict Against Merck." Reuters. 5 April 2006. Reuters. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx-recall-lawsuit.com/news/verdict.p df.
"Vioxx and FDA Regulations." Martin & Jones. 2005. Martin & Jones. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx-recall-lawsuit.com/fda.htm.
"Vioxx Lawsuit." Martin & Jones. 2005. Martin & Jones. 27 Aug. 2007. http://www.vioxx-recall-lawsuit.com/lawsuit.htm.
Featured Vioxx Settlements Products:
