First California Vioxx Trial Under Way
California, home to over 2,000 lawsuits against drug maker Merck for its pain reliever, saw its first Vioxx trial get under way on June 27, 2006. The case involves a man who had a heart attack at age 66, two years after he started taking Vioxx. His is not unique, and in fact Judge Victoria Chaney, who will be hearing the case, has decided to group a number of similar cases together with the results providing a guideline for future trials and possible out of court settlements in that state.
In outlining its case, defense lawyers stated that Merck intentionally hid facts from consumers and healthcare workers. One example was the fact that in the testing stages, those with heart conditions were excluded from clinical trials “clouding” the results. The lawyers also stated that internal memos dating back to 1996 proved that the company was already aware of potential cardiovascular side effects - and yet Merck did nothing to address this problem before the drug went to market.
“Merck knew of these potential side effects and never told a soul,” said the plaintiff’s attorney.
Not surprisingly, Merck’s own lawyers claimed in court that it was the patient’s health condition that ultimately caused the heart attack, and had nothing to do with his prolonged Vioxx use. It is on this basis that Merck apparently plans to fight in every Vioxx trial brought against the company. The truth is, although research can prove a connection between Vioxx and increased risk of heart attack and stroke in a big enough group of people, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause in individual cases.
However, mounting evidence points to the fact that Merck knew about the heart attack risk of Vioxx, and subsequently chose not to include patients with heart problems in their testing (which could trigger heart attacks within their own research trials). Not only did Merck not warn patients about the risks, especially those who had heart conditions, but the company hired 3,000 professional marketers to actually downplay the risks to inquisitive doctors. In another Vioxx trial, it was revealed that some doctors who asked too many questions were “neutralized” through various bribe methods.
It is this negligence that lawyers working on behalf of plaintiffs in at least 13,000 Vioxx trials nationwide believe will sway juries.