Vioxx recall lawsuit drama begins in Cheryl Rogers case
As expected, the drama in Vioxx lawsuits is getting ugly. Merck, a company that appears to come across as desperate in its behavior so far, started the media war first by accusing plaintiff Cheryl Rogers of being a liar. She is the widow of a man who died after taking Vioxx and her case is the first one to go on trial next month. While it has no technical implications on how other lawsuits turn out, if Merck wins this lawsuit, it may get a boost in its argument that Vioxx did not kill anyone despite repeated findings that Vioxx has injured as many as 140,000 Americans. (Related article: Vioxx recall lawsuits update)
Now Mrs. Rogers' attorney is hitting back. In a motion filed recently, the attorneys are demanding sanctions against Merck for violating a protective order and disclosing personal and confidential information to the news media related to Cheryl Rogers and her deceased husband, Howard Rogers. According to attorney Jere Beasley, whose firm Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama, represents Ms. Rogers: "Merck provided depositions of Mrs. Rogers and Dr. William Clancy, who treated her husband, to local and national press on April 12, in violation of the court's protective order. In fact, one reporter had the documents on this date apparently before it was even filed in court." In addition, the motion cites Merck being in violation of the provisions of HIPAA by disclosing personal medical information pertaining to Howard Brad Rogers. (Related article: Merck continues its attack on Vioxx victims)
Mr. Beasley's motion on behalf of Mrs. Rogers requests that the court vacate its protective order as it relates to documents produced by Merck. He is asking the court to allow for public disclosure by plaintiffs' attorneys of all Merck documents. In a recent disclosure by the New York Times, it has been clearly shown that as early as 2000, Merck knew that Vioxx was killing people but it decided to suppress the evidence so that sales would not be impacted. (Related article: Merck and Pfizer ignored drug safety; focused on profits alone)
In another study, dubbed the Advantage trial (completed in 2000), eight people taking Vioxx suffered heart attacks or sudden cardiac death, compared with just one taking naproxen (Aleve), according to data released by the F.D.A. earlier this year. The difference was statistically significant, but Merck never disclosed the data that way. "Merck intentionally misled the public and the medical community by withholding information relating to known dangers associated with taking Vioxx," Beasley says.
"Releasing Merck's documents would serve the public interest by exposing its wrongful conduct over the years," Beasley adds. "Clinical tests have proven Vioxx is and was a dangerous drug. It has killed literally thousands of unsuspecting victims who trusted the company and who had no idea that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes."
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. has been in the forefront of the effort to have all of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (Bextra, Celebrex and Vioxx) taken off the market since the law firm took on its first case against Merck more than four years ago. Beasley Allen is spearheading the review of over 31,000 claims against the manufacturers of Bextra, Celebrex, and Vioxx, having filed 161 cases to date. In another bizarre turn to the events leading up to the trial, the law firm has also donated campaign contributions to the judge who is presiding over the trial.
Related articles
