Litigation News

Trasylol recall

2007-11-07T18:58:00.000-05:00

The story with drug companies is always the same. They know that their drugs are dangerous and could even killing the people but lust for profit is so high that they keep pushing the drug as long as they can.

Then they get caught. And that is the point at which Bayer has arrived with regards to anti-bleeding drug Trasylol (aprotinin), which has been linked to a higher risk of death. The drug is used during heart bypass surgery.

For as long as one year a mountain of data had shown risk of death, kidney failure and strokes but only after regulators in several countries forced it, the company has decided to recall it. As expected, the lawsuits by victims will be filed soon.

Viagra, Cialis, Levitra cause hearing loss

2007-10-19T13:17:00.000-04:00

Viagra, Cialis and Levitra are wonderful drugs if you suffer from erectile dysfunction but like any other prescription drug, they have huge side effects. For instance, it has been reported earlier that users of Viagra have experienced sudden loss of vision. Not funny at all. Several victims have asked for a recall of Viagra and have even sued Pfizer. Now the drugs carry a warning.

Related articles about risks of Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis

Pfizer refuses to recall Viagra

Pfizer defends Viagra safety

Viagra lawsuits

Levitra recall

Viagra and blindness link

Viagra, Cialis, Levitra black box warning

Now, if you suffer from ED and are using or are tempted by these drugs, think again. The FDA is warning that men may also experience sudden hearing loss. The FDA has mentioned that these warning will be added to the label.

So it is a good time to consider if loss of vision and hearing are worthwhile prices to pay for some bedroom action.

Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator recall

2007-10-17T16:18:00.000-04:00

After Guidant recalled its defibrillators, one would assume that other companies will also learn a lesson. It turns out that greed is a powerful emotion and that is what is evident in the case of Medtronic, which clearly knew the design faults in its defibrillator, but did not disclose the information as long as it could.

After a long delay, the compoany is now telling doctors to stop using a crucial component because it is likely to have a defect that has caused malfunctions in hundreds of patients and may have contributed to as many as five deaths. The faulty component is an electrical “lead,” or a wire (Sprint Fidelis) that connects the heart to a defibrillator.

What happens next?

If you or a loved one has this lead, you are in trouble. It is more dangerous to replace than the device itself. So should you replace it? Tough question. If it hasn't given trouble, the temptation is to leave it alone, but since it has failed so often, what if it fails for you too? Something that you need to think and decide after consulting your doctor.

If you think Medtronic is sorry for causing you trouble, think again. The company will only pay for replacement if it is proven to be defective and just $800 in medical expenses (anyone who has ever gone to the hospital for heart trouble knows that just a consultation with the cardiologist costs that much). If you want to take it out because you feel that it may go bad in the future, the company says, you are on your own.

How to sue Medtronic?

In other words, the company wants to be sued by you so that you can get money to pay for changing the lead. Actually, the process of lawsuits has already been started by the victims. Leonard Stavish and Kelly Liusi have filed a lawsuit alleging that the company knew of the defects but did not issue a warning. It would be no surprise if this results in class action lawsuit. For you, apart from consulting your doctor, you must also seek an appointment with an attorney specializing in medical malpractice and personal injury.

British Vioxx victims cannot sue Merck in the United States

2007-08-06T15:06:00.000-04:00

Vioxx has hurt people all over the world, not just the United States. While several countries have reasonable laws against drug companies knowingly selling dangerous products, many don't or make it harder for victims to sue them. One of these countries is Britain, which despite being a developed country, makes it difficult for British people to sue drugmakers like Merck.

The British Vioxx victims tried to sue Merck in the United States but in a disappointing decision, a court in New Jersey has ruled that they cannot use the American court system for their grievance. Naturally, Merck is delighted because it can't be effectively sued in the UK for its crimes.

Delays continue in Vioxx trials

2007-05-30T20:32:00.000-04:00

Brian writes, "My case started 2 years ago due to a stroke I suffered after taking Vioxx for 3 years. I am using a group of attorneys who specialize in Vioxx cases. They only get paid if I get compensated. At this point, they said my case is being reviewed by the New Jersey courts. How far along do you think I am in my case? My lawyers have told me that they are making progress but they won't go into detail about a timeline. Please help. I have already suffered enough."

As you very well know American legal process is slow and Merck is doing whatever it can to delay the process. Honestly, I would love to be able to tell you more but based on what you have told me (and I am assuming that you have told me everything that you know), it is nearly impossible for me to say what is happening to your case.

Remember that there are close to 30,000 cases right now and Merck has said that it wants to fight each case one by one (a delaying tactic to wear out the victims). It means that even your attorneys may know only little about when a specific case will be tried. So just be patient. Justice will be served.

Patricia Schwaller did not die from Vioxx pills

2007-03-27T17:26:00.000-04:00

The story of Patricia Schwaller is heartbreaking. According to her husband Frank, she took Vioxx for about 20 months for pain in her shoulders, and then died suddenly due to cardiac arrest in August of 2003. When Vioxx was recalled a year later, he suspected that the drug killed his wife since there is overwhelming evidence now that Vioxx increases the risk of cardiovascular complications.

In a scenario that we have seen in the lawsuits brought by Stewart Grossberg, Gary Albright, Anthony Dedrick, Elaine Doherty, Gary Smith, Charles Laron Ron Mason, and a few others, she had a family history of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure. The message is that if you are overweight or obese, you have a weak case against Merck. The company is exploiting this weakness in the cases of many victims.

It's not over yet. Frederick Mike Humeston, who lost his case the first time, eventually won $48 million compensation in the retrial - the company has made the same arguement in his case. Merck faces as many as 27,000 lawsuits and only a few cases have been decided so far.

Merck must pay $48 million to Vioxx victim

2007-03-13T11:21:00.000-04:00

Frederick Mike Humeston lost his first Vioxx trial since the company hid crucial and damaging evidence from the jurors. New Jersy Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee did the right thing by granting him a retrial. Last week, Humeston got a favorable decision in his case.

Merck has now been directed by a jury to pay as much as $47.5 million to Humeston and his wife - $20 million in compensatory and $27.5 million in punitive damages.

Now don't expect the company to simply write him a check right away. The company will do anything possible to deny him (and all other Vioxx victims who have won their cases) any compensation for his heart attack and suffering. "We disagree with today's jury's verdict," said Hope Freiwald of Dechert LLP, a member of Merck's defense team. "The last time a jury considering the Humeston case had a chance to hear all the evidence at one time it found that Merck acted responsibly." Merck has objected to the structure of the trial because of the potential for jury confusion and bias.

Merck loses Humeston Vioxx lawsuit

2007-03-02T18:27:00.000-05:00

When twice-decorated, Vietnam-war veteran Frederick "Mike" Humeston lost his Vioxx lawsuit against Merck, everyone was shocked by Merck's ferocious attack. Thanks to the foresight and wisdom of New Jursey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee who was very troubled by the discovery of highly incriminating documents, a retrial was granted to give him another chance for justice.

Now a jury in Atlantic City has done justice to him. In a a big slap on the face of Merck attorneys and executives, who have tried to argue that the company did nothing wrong, the jury has decided that the company committed fraud by knowingly hiding the dangers of Vioxx. The decision implies that if Merck cared for the lives and health of its customers, Humeston would have never suffered a heart attack and would still be a healthy man.

When he took Vioxx for his arthritic pain, he did not realize that it would lead to a heart attack. So when Merck recalled Vioxx after the death of as many as 60,000 Americans (and an unknown number of people worldwide), he sued. Instead of admitting its guilt, the company used every dirty trick it could find, every document that it could hide, and every lie that it could come up with to deny him any compensation.

The other lawsuit that was tried simultaneously with this case, and brought by the estate of Brian Hermans, went in Merck's favor.

Merck attorney Diane Sullivan misbehaves in Vioxx trial

2007-01-24T13:26:00.000-05:00

Merck attorney Diane Sullivan has done it again. Her unprofessional behaviour in the first Humeston trial attracted the anger and reprimand from Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee. With the kind of rebuke that she received even a six-year old would have gotten the message; not Sullivan though it seems.

In a replay of her past behavior, she violated all the rules of behaving professionally in a court. "It is unprofessional, it is unethical, and it is contemptuous of this court," Judge Higbee said. She further accused Sullivan of deliberately violating the Judge's orders and vowed that she was "not going to deal with this kind of unprofessionalism." Ouch!

Oh, are things that bad at Merck that they can't hire a decent lawyer to represent them in the latest trial? Yes, they are. Hope Freiwald, another attorney on Merck's team, confirmed "We're going to continue to go forward with Diane as the lead counsel."

Rudolph Arrigale, Lawrence Appell case mistrial

2007-01-19T10:32:00.000-05:00

Rudolph Arrigale and Lawrence Appell from California are blaming Merck for knowing the dangers of the painkiller but not disclosing these to them, their physicians, and the FDA. They say that if they knew that the painkiller was deadly, they would have never taken it. In the trial, the jury got deadlocked over the issue of Merck's responsibility for communicating the risks and dangers.

Brian Panish, the plaintiff's attorney is asking for a retrial. Retrial in the case of Frederick "Mike" Humeston (Mark Lanier is his attorney again) is in progress in Atlantic City. The other new case being tried has been brought by Kathleen Hermans Messerschmidt (represented by Christopher Seeger), sister of Brian Hermans who died at the young age of 44 after taking Vioxx.

In a related development, a New Jersey court is also directing Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee to allow medical monitoring of patients who took the drug but did not suffer any cardiovascular complications right away. In another judgment, the Vioxx class action lawsuits are also going forward.

Vioxx victims to receive medical screening

2007-01-18T14:30:00.000-05:00

Vioxx victims received another victory over Merck. The company withdrew the deadly painkiller in 2005 after it was found that as many as 60,000 Americans died due to heart attacks and strokes due to the side effects of the drug. Many of these patients who did not suffer a cardiovascular complication, like Phyllis Sinclair and Joseph Murray, had sued the firm seeking medical monitoring. The company has been very hostile to its past customers and refused to pay for it.

A New Jersey Appeals court is ordering Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee that she reconsider her earlier decision to side with the drugmaker.

Vioxx litigation resumes

2007-01-17T15:48:00.000-05:00

While recent months have meant setbacks to Vioxx victims and victories for Merck, in a favorable decision to the victims, a New Jersey appellate court has ruled against the company, potentially allowing some more class action lawsuits to go forward.

In related news, after a break for Christmas holidays, Vioxx litigation is resuming in the court of NJ Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, who is presiding over most of the approximately 27,000 cases.

One plaintiff is Frederick "Mike" Humeston, a decorated Vietnam veteran, who first lost his case because Merck hid critical data about the dangers of the painkiller. He eventually won a retrial and the trial is now on.

The second lawsuit has been fined by the estate of Brian Hermans, who died of a heart attack at an early age of 44. While Merck has won some cases arguing that victims were already obese and had pre-existing cardiovascular complications, it may be somewhat harder to claim that in this case. Hermans was "a world-class racquetball player" whose autopsy showed a heart artery blocked by a large blood clot (something that Vioxx is known to do). The attorney taking on Merck is Mark Lanier, who also defended Carol Ernst.

Gary Albright loses Vioxx case to Merck

2006-12-15T16:20:00.000-05:00

Gary Albright, a 57-year old man from Chelsea, Alabama, has met the same fate as Anthony Dedrick yesterday and 7 other plaintiffs: they failed to get a single dime from Merck for their heart attacks and strokes caused by Vioxx because they were in poor health. Like others, Mr. Albright, an obese man, suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.

Considering that two out of three Americans are either obese or overweight and suffer from conditions like this, things are clearly looking bright for the company that recalled the deadly drug in 2004 that has killed as many as 60,000 Americans, according to estimates developed by an FDA expert.

According to latest statistics, the company has as many as 27,000 lawsuits pending and another 14,000 victims have entered agreements with the company suspending the time limit. Then there are 265 class action lawsuits. There are also lawsuits pending overseas.

Right now there is an ongoing case of Kent Jarrell while six more cases will be tried during the next six months. If Merck continues its winning spree, it may decide to settle next year but the victims are likely to get a much smaller payment.

Anthony Dedrick loses Vioxx case due to poor health

2006-12-14T10:38:00.000-05:00

I had talked previously about the lawsuit filed by a 51-year old Tennesse man, Anthony Wayne Dedrick claiming that Vioxx was the major reason for his heart attack. I am sad to report that, in yet another situation, a plaintiff's unhealthy lifestyle choice has been a factor in his losing his Vioxx lawsuit. Not only did this gentleman smoke and used cocaine, he also suffered from diabetes, high cholesterol, and has a family history of heart disease.

While there is overwhelming evidence to show that Vioxx was a deadly painkiller and could be fatal even if taken occasionally or in small doses, but for those patients who have other medical conditions or are in poor health due to other causes like obesity, it is hard to prove that there is a link between Vioxx and their heart attack or stroke.

According to the United States Food & Drug Administration estimates, as many as 60,000 Americans were killed by Vioxx and the company is facing as many as 24,000 lawsuits. Less than a dozen cases have gone to trial so far and Merck has won seven cases so far, almost all of them on the basis of poor health of the plaintiffs.

Utah man loses Vioxx case

2006-11-15T16:59:00.000-05:00

In a recent statement, the Merck CEO gloated over the fact that the company has not paid a single penny to any of the families of 60,000 Americans who have died after taking Vioxx, but who is to blame. After all, it seems that almost all victims are/were in poor health. “Heart attacks are, unfortunately, a leading cause of death in the United States and have multiple causes,” Merck's chief counsel, Kenneth Frazier said after the verdict came. In other words, with two out of three Americans being either obese/overweight (and suffering from all kinds of problems related to cholesterol, diabetes, heart diseases, etc.), it is simply easy to argue that the victim "would have suffered a heart attack whether he was taking VIOXX or not” as the company puts it.

The latest Vioxx victim to lose his case is Charles Laron "Ron" Mason of Salt Lake County, Utah, who is a typical American health-wise. To further complicate his case, he did not take the deadly drug a few days prior to his heart attack - maybe it helped him in the sense that he did not die but was not a help today in his case. While many independent experts have argued that Vioxx can kill even if taken rarely and the dangers may last for years, in this particular case, the revelation came to the surprise of everyone - including his own attorney - in the court.

The next federal lawsuit by Anthony Dedrick of Waynesboro, Tennesse is scheduled to go to trial in Fallon's court after Thanksgiving. A decision is expected soon in the cases brought by Rudolph Arrigale and Lawrence Appel.

Merck in a lot of trouble

The company is getting into more trouble for cheating on its taxes. A penalty of over $5 billion is expected. In a related development, Canadian Vioxx victims who had sued the company's subsidiary there won a victory when a judge in Quebec ruled that the lawsuit should proceed forward despite company's wish to try one case at a time. Plus, the company still faces over 20,000 lawsuits in the US alone.

Merck talks settlement but only in the future

2006-11-09T13:33:00.000-05:00

Vioxx litigation is not progressing as fast as many victims would like to and Merck is enjoying the delay. Right now there is a trial going on California and the only one expected in 2006. While it is too early to say who is "winning" - Merck legal team apparently believes that they are winning since they are yet to hand out a single penny to any victim. On the contrary, they are boasting that some 3,000 cases are not going to trial because the victims were so discouraged with long delays and hassles, that they simply gave up.

Merck CEO Richard Clark, who replaced Raymond Gilmartin, who was fired for his incompetent handling of recall of the painkiller, boasts in an interview, "We know our strategy is right. It's case by case, day by day, jury by jury," Clark said. He adds, "This case by case (strategy) is going to take us years until we are satisfied that the case load is the proper case load. We're not there yet." In other words, a settlment is years away and only for those who have the patience or those who don't die from the permanent damage that the drug has caused to their health.

Experts put Merck's Vioxx liabilities into tens of billions of dollars. In a related development, Merck may also be forced to pay over $5 billion for cheating the IRS in taxes.

Update on California Vioxx lawsuits

2006-11-08T13:44:00.000-05:00

The Vioxx litigation process is currently in a slow phase with not many cases being tried at this moment and it should be fairly quiet as we head into the holiday season.

Right now two California men - Rudolph Arrigale and Lawrence Appel - are arguing in a Los Angeles court that Vioxx was responsible for their heart attacks.

In a related development, IRS and the Government of Canada are charging that Merck used illegal accountring tricks to avoid paying taxes. It may need to pay as much as $5.5 billion in back taxes and penalties.

Merck cannot be sued in USA by English Vioxx victims

2006-10-06T15:31:00.000-04:00

The direction of Vioxx litigation for British victims has seen a series of setbacks. According to a major flaw in their legal system, they are unable to sue Merck in the United Kingdom.

In yet another setback to them, a court in New Jersney has now ruled that they cannot sue the company in American courts.

Merck is currently facing as many as 40,000 claims in the US courts but only a handful of cases have gone to trial. So far the company has won as many cases as it has lost.

Merck wins Gary Smith case

2006-09-27T10:28:00.000-04:00

Gary Smith of Florence, Kentucky, who claimed that he did not know the dangers of Vioxx lost his case against Merck in which he held the company accountable for his heart attack. The company was successfully able to show a jury of six men and two women that his other health factors like high blood pressure and coronary artery disease (plus, intense physical labor on the day of the heart attack) were the main reasons.

While there is no doubt that Vioxx does cause heart attacks and strokes, it is not easy to make that case for each individual if there can be other contributing factors like obesity or diabetes or high blood pressure. It does make it difficult for thousands of Vioxx victims to demand compensation from the company that was forced to recall the drug after tens of thousands of deaths worldwide.

With this victory, Merck has won five lawsuits while it has lost four. As the statute of limitations ends, Merck is likely to face close to 20,000 lawsuits in the coming months unless there is a settlement before that.

Merck research disputed again as it goes to trial

2006-09-14T10:50:00.000-04:00

Merck is back to fighting its war with three more Vioxx victims: Gary Smith, a 56-year old from Florence in Kentucky and two other victims from California, Rudolph Arrigale and Lawrence Appell, who are scheduled to start their consolidated trial (a setback to the company which is strongly opposed to consolidating cases) within weeks.

As has Merck done in every single time in the past, it is accusing the victims for their heart attacks, but looks as if science is going to help them. In two studies being published, Vioxx has been found to be the most dangerous Cox-2 drug. Apart from causing cardiovascular problems in patients, these studies find that Vioxx also causes kidney and heart arrhythmia problems and it does it pretty quickly.

It has also been found in another study that if Merck had done some data analysis earlier, the dangers of Vioxx would have been known earlier and thousands of lives saved.

Several Vioxx cases retrials likely

2006-09-01T16:19:00.000-04:00

The news that the Gerald Barnett case will have a retrial, has not been greeted with disappointment by the plaintiff attorney. On the other hand, Mark P. Robinson, Jr., lead plaintiff lawyer in the case says that the federal judge's ruling on compensatory damages, in fact, supports the jury's finding of liability and is a "positive development" for his client and others suing Merck.

"This is a significantly positive decision for all of those whose lives have been damaged or destroyed by Vioxx," said Robinson. "The judge ruled that the jury's findings -- that Merck negligently failed to warn and committed deceit-by-concealment with Vioxx -- were reasonable findings. Though the court ruled that the compensatory damages were excessive, the judge also said he was not troubled by the punitive damages award. Further, he is going to allow one jury to try both the compensatory and the punitive damages award again in a single trial. All of this taken together is a very positive development for those who are victims of Vioxx."

Will the Leonel Garza case retried too?

Merck's attempts to delay any payment of compensation to victims got another boost when it came to light that a juror, Jose Manuel Rios, may have had a financial relationship with the widow Felicia Garza. While in the small Texas community, this is very common, Merck wants to use this as a basis for retrial.

Retrial in Gerald Barnett case

2006-08-31T11:23:00.000-04:00

After a $51 million verdict by the jury in the Gerald Barnett case, Judge Eldon Fallon has ordered a new trial after accepting the argument by Merck that the compensation was too high. Mr. Barnett was a retired FBI agent, and while the Judge has agreed with the finding of the jury that Merck is liable for taking as many as 10 years of his life, he would not have made that kind of money.

In other words, Merck is still guilty, but the new trial will merely focus on what is a more reasonable compensation for Gerald Barnett. It may be a small victory for the company, but Merck is still facing many legal challenges.

Two major legal setback to Merck in Vioxx litigation

2006-08-17T16:20:00.000-04:00

Earlier today Gerald Barnett was awarded as much as $51 million by a jury for the suffering (he had multiple bypass surgeries) he went through after taking Vioxx. Of course, Merck has responded by promising to appeal.

But that is not all. Remember Mike Humeston? He is a decorated Vietnam veteran who lost his case last year. Judge Carol Higbee of the New Jersey state court ruled today that he deserves a new trial considering that fact that Merck has retracted its claims about the safety of Vioxx. Additionally, Merck has admitted that Vioxx can be equally dangerous to short term users.

Since the courts are swamped with cases - and more are expected to be filed before the September 30th deadline approaches - it is likely that the Humeston lawsuit retrial will begin in 2007.

Resounding defeat for Merck in Gerald Barnett case

2006-08-17T13:18:00.000-04:00

When two Vioxx victims in a row - Stewart Grossberg and Elaine Doherty - lost their lawsuits against Merck, other victims started to wonder if that was part of a trend. Today's news that Merck should pay at least $51 million to another victim - Gerald Barnett - shows that not all cases are alike and if an arthritis patient has been genuinely hurt by the recalled painkiller and has no other major illnesses (a weakness that has been exploited by Merck), they have a very strong chance to prove that their heart attack or stroke was due to heavily marketed painkiller.

In a big victory for millions of people who took Vioxx, a jury has ruled that not only should Merck pay damages to Mr. Barnett (who had several bypass surgeries after taking the drug) but also held it responsible for knowingly marketing a dangerous drug.

And if you were expecting a word of apology from the company, forget it. In a statement released today, the company is blaming the jury and is vowing to appeal. Merck is already buried under thousands of lawsuits and the number is expected to rise as the deadline of September 30, 2006 to file lawsuits nears.

Stewart Grossberg loses Vioxx lawsuit

2006-08-03T09:55:00.000-04:00

After Elaine Doherty lost her bid to expose Merck's role in heart attacks and strokes caused by Vioxx, another victim, Stewart Grossberg, also lost his case. Earlier it was feared that merely short term users of the painkiller were at a disadvantage but these two cases show that Americans that are in poor health due to other reasons (like obesity) may have a hard time convincing juries.

Like Frederick Mike Humeston, Thomas Cona, and Richard “Dicky” Irvin (deceased, but the lawsuit brought by his wife Evelyn Irvin Plunkett), Northridge, California resident Stewart Grossberg also failed in his efforts to be compensated by Merck, which aggressively marketed the painkiller Vioxx and deliberately hid its dangers. As many as 60,000 Americans are dead after taking the drug and as many as 16,000 lawsuits are pending.

In the Stewart Grossberg case, he failed in his efforts to show a solid link between Vioxx and his heart attack because of his pre-existing heart and cholesterol problems. The drug was most often prescribed to patients with arthritis pain who also happen to be older and more likely to suffer from other conditions like diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and other diseases that may also cause a heart attack.

Most analysts believed that Grossberg's case was weak and now attorneys are eagerly awaiting the outcome of another lawsuit by Gerald Barnett, an ex-FBI agent, who was more physically fit but suffered a heart attack and needed a five-way bypass operation.