Merck Gets Hit With Vioxx Legal Bill
2 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // June 15th, 2007 // 5:57 pm
The drugmaker came away with a split decision in a New Jersey court last year, but is still shelling out a lot of money for the privilege. In a ruling today, state court judge Carol Higbee decided Merck must pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers - Mark Lanier and his law firm, and Weitz & Luxenberg - 80 percent of the $5.5 million fees they requested. (For the curious, Lanier submitted a bill for 807 hours’ work of his own at $650 per hour, or nearly $525,000).
The recap: A jury last year decided Merck failed to adequately warn two men about Vioxx risks linked to heart attacks and strokes, but determined the painkiller was a factor in only one man’s attack. One was awarded $4.5 million, and the other received only $45 to compensate him for the cost of his medication. Last week, Higbee ruled the evidence was sufficient to deny Merck’s request for a new trial.
In other words, Merck is paying out $10 million to the opposing side, and that’s before including its own legal fees, which were likely to be about $5 million or so. And this was a split decision. Imagine these numbers multiplied by 27,000 Vioxx lawsuits. Merck’s insurers will likely be interested in the math.
Dennis Harrison
Cox–2 inhibitors
Mis-aligned or Mismanaged?
More than touches the heart!
Ignorance, real or feigned is bliss for those making the money?
With all the publicity of cox-2 drugs:, the fact that Celebrex is still is on the market, and Novartis (Prexige) and Merck (Arcoxcia) are attempting entry why in the world are there no real investigations going on by the respective drug companies relative to bone/spine repair/healing?
There are many Independent Research articles on this topic. There have been experiments. There has been careful analysis of many, many experiments AND intellectual analysis on the major negative impacts of cox-2s inhibitors and bone/spine repair/healing.
Apparently and allegedly, even one of Merck’s paid consultant’s, long ago stated that the evidence was “compelling” and it is “time to tell the public”…
A deft ear?
Allegedly, Merck has turned a deft ear to the industry warnings, its OWN paid consultant, and the increasing amount of Independent Research. Obviously this seems to also be the case with Phizer (Celebrex) and Novartis (Prexige).
This is not about the well known, highly publicized tendency towards heart/CV issues. This is about the much lesser known impact on bones and spines attempting to heal from fractures and/or operations. Allegedly, as the heart cases are litigated, one by one as Merck has declared, this issue is just blithely passed by. Seems like a convenient arrangement for Merck – what do you think?
This is about the very likely thousands of individuals who have tragically been negatively impacted by cox-2 inhibitors, whether off or on the market. This is about spine/bone issues(s) that are more than likely happening RIGHT NOW, as well as more in the future as the newer cox-2 inhibitors try to get FDA approval.
The WHY’s
This is about the things that should take place but are not.
Why is the issue not being actively investigated by the drug companies involved?
Why is the issue apparently just being ignored?
Why wasn’t there any warnings about a problem that was allegedly known by the drug companies involved as far back as the year 2000 and possibly before?
Why aren’t there any warnings now?
Why isn’t there active work going on to research and decide on how to move forward with proper warnings and education for physicians and consumers?
With the other warnings provided by Cox-2 inhibitors, how could the respective drug companies possibly justify never mentioning this issue, anywhere?
Let individuals suffer – and don’t even provide fair warning – as long as overall profit is great! Develop in a neglectful environment, market in a deceitful and fraudulent one! – as long as revenue and profits exceed the costs of a fair warning!
Could it be that proper warnings and education of physicians and consumers is purposely being ignored and dismissed? Could it be that even though it would not cost much for the drug companies to do it (relative to the number of sales), the drug companies are very worried that this issue would adversely impact sales. As a consumer you may recoil at the thought of taking something for arthritis that could damage your bone/spine. The drug companies would have two choices then:
1 – educate and warn so as to put it in the proper perspective. Let the medications be utilized in the general public, but provide adequate warnings so it can be suspended when necessary. The management of the cox-2 inhibitors and how it is positioned is what matters. Proper warnings and education would lose only a small amount of sales as long as it was managed correctly (i.e. warnings, education).
2 – Ignore the situation; don’t address it in any way; keep the maximum profit and revenue revved up and take the position that there is no such thing as a fair profit and fair warnings to the public.
So rather than educate consumers and physicians, as well as proper warnings, it certainly seems that a conscious decision has been made not to let the Jeanie out of the bottle.
Mis-mangement or Management?
Mis-management of the situation is just ignoring it hoping it doesn’t surface and/or just keep delaying it and maximizing the revenue/profit in the short term – as this is what the drug executives are paid for; NOT long term corporate viability and responsibility. You know, long term viability and responsibility IS the way to maximize the long term profits and revenue; but today all reward is based upon short term results. Those meeting them just go on to something new after receiving promotions or new jobs based upon their tremendous impact on revenue/profit – which is real in the short run, but an illusion in the long term.
Could it also be that the drug companies well know that many, many people have been very much damaged - permanently - by this problem but that they (i.e. the drug companies) have been so successful in not pursuing the issue, that they just don’t care that so many people have been hurt?
Apparently, even when an issue is so well understood proper warnings and education are trumped by profit and revenue. I am ALL FOR revenue and profit. But I am also for fair warnings for gosh sake!
The cox-2 inhibitors, heart/CV issues aside, could still be marketed and bring in lots and lots of revenue and profit - even if the drug companies educated physicians and consumers and provide fair warnings and labeling changes. What simply seems to be necessary, relative to bone/spine problems is DON’T TAKE THE COX-2 INHIBITORS WHILE UNDERGOING BONE OR SPINE REPAIR AND HEALING! Take them before, take them after (about 6 weeks) - but don’t take them DURING THE HEALING PROCESS!
The issue will come to an abrupt peak in a couple of years if ignored. Wouldn’t it be much more humane to address it now - before many, many more bones and spines remain broken, poorly, or improperly healed?
Don’t believe it?
Do a GOOGLE (no quotes needed) on:
“bone spine repair healing cox-2 inhibitor”;
“Vioxx bone healing”;
“Vioxx Harrison Exhibits”.
Go the extra effort and just spend a little of time reading and analyzing. It won’t take much effort to understand the past, present and (unless something is done) future tragedies of broken bones and spines that never healed correctly. And just think of the disease victims, sports victims, accident victims, early nursing and medical care for those impacted, etc.
This issue is so, so well known in the Research and Development field. It is allegedly also very well known by the drug companies. It wasn’t known by consumers and physicians virtually at all for many years. Today, it is really still not understood by the vast majority of physicians - only some murky not understood thoughts here and there.
And while you are at it think of the growing number of problems allegedly associated with biophosphates and drugs like FOSAMAX. \Seriously, spend a bit of time understanding the bone/spine repair/healing problems then investigate bio-phosphates such as FOSAMAX. I really think you will just throw your bio-phosphates down the toilet when you REALLY understand how they work; and when you merely speculate a bit on the potential issues of concurrent bio-phophate and Cox-2 inhibitor usage – being that they both work by interfering the body’s natural bone/spine regeneration capabilities – in a bit different ways, and also in similar ways!
Meanwhile - bones and spines break and don’t mend. Revenue and profit keeps pouring in. The overall public may, arguably, benefit from arthritic relief and that is good for those it helps and does not damage.
But wait, how about the unwary and duped souls with broken bones and spines who suffer with no recourse as the drug companies just keep stamping the issue into the ground. Apparently someone or something has decided that these individuals should suffer for the good of those it helps. It would be one thing if they were warned and on an “informed†consent took the drug, but to be so blindsided is not only immoral, but seems to border on criminal intent. Surely neglect, deceit and fraud also enter the array of tools used to dupe the public. The major issue is that those affected so adversely were not even warned of KNOWN problems.
One more time – here we go again!
This is a horrible, ugly shame that is going on right now! It will come to a startling, numbing realization sometime within a few years. Then the public once again will wonder how this type of thing happened (again); litigation will escalate and here we go again.
Dennis Harrison
NY
badbonehealing@hvc.rr.com
Hank
The big story on lawsuits against pharma is the push to have them all dismissed on the basis of “FDA preemption” - the doctrine that argues that if a drug is “in compliance” with FDA labeling requirements, there can be no suits over “failure to warn,” which is the ground of most suits against pharm cos.
There is currently a Texas case in which the judge is holding up _all_ Vioxx-related suits in that state until the Texas Supreme Court rules on the FDA preemption argument. Almost certainly, the US Supreme Court will end up ruling on one of such the cases now in the Circuits.
Given the current make-up of the Supreme Court, there is a reasonable chance that Merck could end up with no liability whatsoever. Likewise, Glaxo, Lilly, et. al..
Besides justice for individuals, imagine a situation in which the _sole_ enforcer of pharma accountability was the FDA?