Current Lawsuits

Vioxx

To receive updates about this case please click here!

About Vioxx
Vioxx is a COX-2 selective, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) used for pain relief, often by arthritis patients.  Vioxx is manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc.  ("Merck”).  On September 30, 2004, Merck recalled Vioxx from the market because of evidence that the drug increased the risk of heart attack or stroke. 

Background
Prior to its withdrawal, Vioxx was a highly profitable drug for Merck, with sales of $1.3 billion in just the first nine months of 2004.  In 2003 alone, Merck spent nearly $500 million in promotions to doctors and $78 million in direct-to-consumer advertising.  Internal emails from as far back as 1996 show that Merck knew that the drug can increase the risk for serious cardiovascular events, including heart attack and stroke.  As early as 2000, clinical trial data showed that Vioxx caused a five-fold increase in the risk of heart attack or stroke.  More than 20 million people took Vioxx. 

PAL Member Litigation
In February 2005, PAL members filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts alleging that Merck engaged in a massive deceptive advertising campaign which misled consumers into purchasing Vioxx at a substantially inflated price. In March 2005, PAL filed a similar case in Louisiana and in August 2005, PAL also filed a case in California.   

Vioxx is no more effective, as a pain reliever, than ibuprofen or naproxen (marketed as Aleve).  The only improvement Vioxx offered over older, trusted pain relievers was a decreased risk of stomach bleeding and ulcer.  However, no more than 2-4% of patients are at risk for developing these stomach problems.  For the majority of Americans, ibuprofen or naproxen provides the exact same pain relief at a fraction of the cost (naproxen retails for approximately $0.06 per pill; prior to its recall, Vioxx cost as much as $3.00 per pill). 

The small number of patients that could benefit from Vioxx's decreased risk of stomach problems would have made Vioxx a rarely prescribed drug under normal circumstances.  To increase its sales, Merck launched a massive advertising campaign targeting doctors and patients.  Much of Merck"s advertising came in the form of direct-to-consumer advertising.  Merck used such advertising to convince consumers that Vioxx was a premium drug that offered significant safety benefits over older, cheaper pain relievers.  Most famously, Vioxx commercials featured Olympic figure skater, Dorothy Hamill, talking about the wonders of Vioxx.

In truth, not only did Vioxx offer no safety benefits to the vast majority of consumers, it actually increased their risk of death from a heart attack or stroke.  Internal Merck documents have revealed that the company knew about the increased risks of cardiovascular events as early as 1996, but continued to market the drug as safe and sell it for $3 dollars a pill.  Had Merck disclosed the risks of Vioxx, consumers would not have been willing to pay the high price Merck charged. 

The lawsuit alleges that Merck deceived consumers through its marketing of Vioxx and convinced them to pay a higher price than they would have paid if they had known the risks, if they would have purchased Vioxx at all.  The suit seeks recovery for those who purchased Vioxx at the substantially inflated price made possible only by Merck's massive deceptive advertising campaign. 

These lawsuits do not make claims of personal injury and does not seek damages for any physical injuries caused by Vioxx.  In contrast to personal injury suits, which will only provide relief to a relatively small number of people who can prove that they were injured by the drug, this lawsuit seeks damages for all consumers and third-party payors in Massachusetts, California and nationally who purchased Vioxx since February 2000 and paid some, or all, of the drug"s cost.

Massachusetts case: The defendants answered the complaint, removed the case to federal court, and are currently seeking to transfer the case to Louisiana, where a mulitdistrict litigation proceeding has been established to coordinate all federal Vioxx litigation.

California case: On November 16, Merck filed for permission to appeal. The Ninth Circuit did not grant Merck's petition to appeal and discovery is ongoing. A hearing and status conferecne was held June 5, 2006 but the court has not yet issued its ruling. The next status conference is set for Sept. 11, 2006.  

Louisiana case: In March 2005, PAL members filed a separate case in Louisiana, which has been consolidated in the mulitdistrict litigation proceeding. A hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss was held on February 2, 2006. We are curretnly awaiting the decision.

Update December 2005

Most Vioxx pricing cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs filed a master consolidated complaint on behalf of consumers and third-party payors on August 2, 2005, which the defendant has moved to dismiss. In August 2005, individual consumers filed a separate case in California state court. The defendants removed the case to federal court and plaintiffs successfully remanded the case to state court. The defendants have since petitioned the court to appeal this decision. A status conference will be held on January 4, 2006.

Update September 2008: 

• California case on behalf of all California consumers and payors - On July 27, 2007 the plaintiffs filed motion for class certification.  Early in 2008, the court stayed all proceedings temporarily as a result of Merck's global settlement of the Vioxx personal injury cases. The litigation resumed in the summer of 2008, and Merck's opposition to class certification is due in November 2008, with a hearing scheduled for December, 2008.
• Louisianna case on behalf of a nationwide class -The court still has not ruled on the February 2006 motion to dismiss. It is unclear whether the Court will rule, or remand the cases to the respective state courts where they originated. Class certification has been fully briefed and submitted, but the issue remains undecided.

Courts: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Woodlock) 
            U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Judge Fallon)
            Superior Court of the state of California, for the county of Los Angeles (Judge Chaney)

Resources
	Califonia Vioxx Complaint
	Vioxx LA. Complaint
	Vioxx Mass. Complaint

To receive updates about this case please click here!