RELATED SEARCHES
Sponsored Vioxx Lawsuits Results:
Vioxx Lawsuits: Heart Attacks, Medication And Vioxx Lawyers
By:
Published: August 31, 2007
People must make a leap of faith every time they take prescription drugs, putting their well being in the hands of doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes this trust can be misplaced or abused, and those who take prescribed medications can become the victims of a tragic and sometimes fatal fate. This is the case with Merck, a company which manufactured the arthritis drug Vioxx, and now must face the widows and survivors of those who were not warned of Vioxx's potentially harmful side effects.
Vioxx lawsuits first began when Robert Ernst died of a heart attack in 2001. The cause of Ernst's heart attack was central to the case, and lawyers from both sides debated whether Vioxx was to blame for Ernst's death. After deliberating for 10 and a half hours, the jury decided that the Vioxx medication Ernst took caused his lethal heart attack, and not an arrhythmia as was reported in Ernst's autopsy. Vioxx became available in 1999 and was promptly pulled in September of 2004 after studies began showing an increase in heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems. However, by then Vioxx lawsuits numbered in the thousands.
Since the fateful decision in the case of Robert Ernst, Vioxx lawsuits have not boded well for Merck, as they continue to pile up and the company has continued to pay more money to victims. As Vioxx lawsuits and their decisions role in, the original 675 million dollars that Merck set aside for lawyers to fight Vioxx lawsuits looks as if it may be well short of the final total. The first of the Vioxx lawsuits nearly cost the company 26.1 million dollars in damages; though the jury awarded Ernst's widow over 250 million dollars. Each of the Vioxx lawsuits since is costing similar amounts. Vioxx lawsuits are not always for the deceased, but also for those who have survived heart attacks caused by the arthritis medication. Gerald Barnett, a former FBI agent was recently awarded around 50 million after undergoing quadruple bypass surgery after suffering a heart attack at age 58.
In addition to the complications caused from taking Vioxx, Merck has been accused of covering up signs their medication was potentially dangerous. Vioxx lawsuits assert the company wrongfully covered up data and knowingly continued to sell their product. While it is debatable if these allegations are indeed true, the Vioxx lawsuits and their guilty verdicts seem to indicate that most juries believe the company to be responsible for not only selling a product that causes heart attacks and strokes, but that they did so knowingly. Despite efforts from Merck's lawyers, they have been found guilty of both negligence and a rather malicious manipulation of facts and data.
The sum of these Vioxx lawsuits seems rather exorbitant, yet it is difficult to say what the price of suffering and anguish should be. Millions of dollars is an enormous amount of money, but life and companionship are priceless commodities. While Merck has a rather unenviable role in these Vioxx lawsuits, it is becoming clear that further research and warning should have been given before the decision to release Vioxx was green lighted.
Sources:
"Vioxx Lawsuit." O'Steen and Harrison. 2007. O'Steen and Harrison, PLC.. 29 Aug. 2007. http://vioxx.vanosteen.com/.
"Vioxx Breaking News and Class Action Lawsuit Claims." Lawinfo.com. 2007. Lawinfo.com. 29 Aug. 2007. http://vioxxlawsuit.lawinfo.com/.
Eustice, Carol and Richard. "Vioxx Lawsuit: Jury Holds Merck Liable in Wrongful Death Case." About.com: Arthritis. 2007. About, Inc.. 29 Aug. 2007. http://arthritis.about.com/od/vioxx/a/vioxxlawsuit .htm.
Vioxx lawsuits first began when Robert Ernst died of a heart attack in 2001. The cause of Ernst's heart attack was central to the case, and lawyers from both sides debated whether Vioxx was to blame for Ernst's death. After deliberating for 10 and a half hours, the jury decided that the Vioxx medication Ernst took caused his lethal heart attack, and not an arrhythmia as was reported in Ernst's autopsy. Vioxx became available in 1999 and was promptly pulled in September of 2004 after studies began showing an increase in heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems. However, by then Vioxx lawsuits numbered in the thousands.
Since the fateful decision in the case of Robert Ernst, Vioxx lawsuits have not boded well for Merck, as they continue to pile up and the company has continued to pay more money to victims. As Vioxx lawsuits and their decisions role in, the original 675 million dollars that Merck set aside for lawyers to fight Vioxx lawsuits looks as if it may be well short of the final total. The first of the Vioxx lawsuits nearly cost the company 26.1 million dollars in damages; though the jury awarded Ernst's widow over 250 million dollars. Each of the Vioxx lawsuits since is costing similar amounts. Vioxx lawsuits are not always for the deceased, but also for those who have survived heart attacks caused by the arthritis medication. Gerald Barnett, a former FBI agent was recently awarded around 50 million after undergoing quadruple bypass surgery after suffering a heart attack at age 58.
In addition to the complications caused from taking Vioxx, Merck has been accused of covering up signs their medication was potentially dangerous. Vioxx lawsuits assert the company wrongfully covered up data and knowingly continued to sell their product. While it is debatable if these allegations are indeed true, the Vioxx lawsuits and their guilty verdicts seem to indicate that most juries believe the company to be responsible for not only selling a product that causes heart attacks and strokes, but that they did so knowingly. Despite efforts from Merck's lawyers, they have been found guilty of both negligence and a rather malicious manipulation of facts and data.
The sum of these Vioxx lawsuits seems rather exorbitant, yet it is difficult to say what the price of suffering and anguish should be. Millions of dollars is an enormous amount of money, but life and companionship are priceless commodities. While Merck has a rather unenviable role in these Vioxx lawsuits, it is becoming clear that further research and warning should have been given before the decision to release Vioxx was green lighted.
Sources:
"Vioxx Lawsuit." O'Steen and Harrison. 2007. O'Steen and Harrison, PLC.. 29 Aug. 2007. http://vioxx.vanosteen.com/.
"Vioxx Breaking News and Class Action Lawsuit Claims." Lawinfo.com. 2007. Lawinfo.com. 29 Aug. 2007. http://vioxxlawsuit.lawinfo.com/.
Eustice, Carol and Richard. "Vioxx Lawsuit: Jury Holds Merck Liable in Wrongful Death Case." About.com: Arthritis. 2007. About, Inc.. 29 Aug. 2007. http://arthritis.about.com/od/vioxx/a/vioxxlawsuit .htm.
Featured Vioxx Lawsuits Products:
