UP TO DATE SETTLEMENT AND CASE INFORMATION BELOW

VIOXX A DRUG MANUFACTURED BY MERCK TO REDUCE SEVERE PAIN AND HELP ARTHRITIS HAS BEEN WIDELY USED.  WHEN IT WAS FIRST RELEASED IN 1999 IT WAS CALLED "SUPER ASPIRIN" BEING AS EFFECTIVE AS THE BEST ANTI-INFLAMMATORY MEDICINES WITHOUT CAUSING STOMACH UPSET.  MERCK KNEW AS EARLY AS 1996 THAT THERE IS INCREASED RISK OF HEART ATTACK AND STROKE WITH VIOXX USE.  ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 THE MANUFACTURER WAS WARNED BY THE UNITED STATES FDA ABOUT ITS INADEQUATE WARNINGS FOR THE PRODUCT. IN CANADA VIOXX WAS MARKETED WITH LESS OF A WARNING THAN IN THE USA.  THIS PRODUCT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE MARKET ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 AFTER A NEW STUDY WAS RELEASED CONFIRMING IT CAUSES STROKES, HEART ATTACKS AND OTHER HEART PROBLEMS.   MERCK HID THE HIGH RISK OF VIOXX FROM PATIENTS AND DOCTORS UNTIL THE TIME OF RECALL DESPITE THE WARNING FROM THE US FDA  ABOUT THE MARKETING OF VIOXX, WHICH STATED THAT MERCK "MINIMIZED THE POTENTIALLY SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR FINDINGS THAT WERE OBSERVED". 

FEW PEOPLE HEARD THE ALARM UNTIL VIOXX WAS RECALLED IN OCTOBER 2004. NOW THREE YEARS LATER IT IS TOO LATE TO BRING NEW CLAIMS IN US COURTS.  MERCK HAS WON 10 OF 15 TRIALS AND HAS ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT IN THE US REFLECTIVE OF THEIR POSITION OF STRENGTH FROM FIGHTING CLAIMS. IN CANADA THE RIGHT TO MAKE A CLAIM IS PRESERVED FOR ALL BY THE CLASS ACTION PROCEEDINGS. THOSE PROCEEDINGS WILL MOST LIKELY BE CERTIFIED THIS SPRING OR SUMMER AFTER A HEARING SET FOR FEBRUARY 13 WAS ADJOURNED TO BE RESCHEDULED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 15, 2008.  THE RIGHT TO CLAIM LATER WOULD END AFTER CERTIFICATION WHEN CANADIANS WILL HAVE A CHOICE OF ACCEPTING WHATEVER THE CLASS ACTION TERMS OF SETTLEMENT TURN OUT TO BE OR OPTING OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION AND MAKING THEIR OWN CLAIM.  WE WILL ADVISE OUR CLIENTS ON WHAT IS THE BEST CHOICE FOR THEIR CASE AFTER THE CERTIFICATION ORDER IS GIVEN.  IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT US TO ADD A CLAIM TO THE LARGE GROUP WE ARE REPRESENTING.  WE EXPECT THAT MOST OF OUR CLIENTS WILL QUALIFY FOR SETTLEMENT ONCE IT IS EXTENDED TO CANADA. CALL OUR OFFICE AND SPEAK WITH ANNA AT EXTENSION 118 OR LEA-ANN AT EXTENSION 117.  YOU MAY EMAIL MURRAY MISKIN DIRECTLY AT miskinlaw@aol.com FOR A QUICK RESPONSE.

  IF YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM FOR INJURY KEEP YOUR PILL BOTTLES AND PRESCRIPTION BILLS, PRINT-OUTS AND OTHER RECORDS TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE OF YOUR USE. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU OR SOMEONE CLOSE TO YOU HAS HAD HEART OR STROKE PROBLEMS DUE TO BEXTRA OR VIOXX, CALL THE MISKIN LAW OFFICES    ( SPEAK TO MURRAY EXTENSION 111 OR ANNA EXTENSION 118) OR EMAIL:  MURRAY@ADRWORKS.COM  OR miskinlaw@aol.com  WE ARE MONITORING THE PENDING UNITED STATES CASES AND WORKING WITH THE COALITION FORMED FOR CANADIAN CLASS ACTIONS. AT THIS TIME WE ARE ACCEPTING CASES ONLY WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN SERIOUS LASTING HEART SYMPTOMS OR A STROKE BELIEVED TO BE CAUSED BY BEXTRA OR VIOXX. FROM THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE SEEN THESE PROBLEMS CAN OCCUR WITH EVEN SHORT TERM BEXTRA OR VIOXX USE BUT IS MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR QUICKLY WITH HIGHER DAILY DOSAGES.  THE STANDARD FOR THE U.S. SETTLEMENTS REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 30 VIOXX TABLETS TO HAVE BEEN CONSUMED BY A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE VICTIM. IF YOU SUSPECT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM SEE YOUR DOCTOR AND GET A DIAGNOSIS OF YOUR CONDITION BEFORE YOU CONTACT US.  For quickest response contact us by email.  We have clients from coast to coast in Canada. Please provide a mailing address with your email and specific details of dates of vioxx and/or bextra use, size of pill and daily dosage, why it was prescribed and timing of problems so we will know if you qualify for our contingency fee services. We will then mail you our information package to make a claim now if your bextra or vioxx symptoms appear to be serious enough and lasting and if they are ones where it is heart or stroke related.

Case Update:  This is a new update started in January 2007 and edited due to a U.S. settlement in November 2007.  You may review our previous updates by clicking here.  Contact us by email to murray@adrworks.com or miskinlaw@aol.com  The Vioxx cases continued to progress in the US in 2007.  Most recent trials have favoured Merck.  In the Garza case large plaintiff damages were reduced to comply with the law in a decision just before Christmas 2006.  This and other cases have not been heavily reported by the media due to apparent fatigue with this long outstanding issue.  I will report here developments that you are not likely to otherwise hear and explain some of what you may have heard. The Canadian cases in the New Jersey court were stopped until the issue is decided as to whether they can proceed in that court.  Last year the U.S. Federal Court rejected foreign claims including Canadian ones so they may not be heard there.  Merck being headquartered in New Jersey makes the New Jersey state court ideal for Canadian and other foreign claims.  Unfortunately, there has already been a ruling against British Plaintiffs who have been told they can find justice in the British courts.  Canadians were considered likely to hear the same but the issue no longer remains open due to the settlement agreement for U.S. residents only which put an end to foreign claims including Canadian ones in the US courts. 

In the fall of 2006 I wrote all of our clients a report on the status of their case and I have received back a number of written updates as requested.  If you have not updated any changes please contact our office.  We have had difficulty reaching some clients due to moves and changed email addresses and phone numbers.  If you are a client keep us up to date on how you are.  If you have prescription records you have not yet sent us please send them.  The Canadian case has been simply waiting for progress towards U.S. settlements.  It is not too late to be added to our group of clients for the Canadian Class Action.  Call Anna at Extension 118 to review possible new claims.

You may recall the first trial of Mike Humeston a New Jersey Plaintiff which was won by Merck in October 2005.  Our detailed report of that case which was the first to go to trial in New Jersey can be found by clicking here.  After it became clear that Merck introduced false evidence and suppressed information for that trial a new trial was ordered.  It began with Jury selection on January 23, 2007 together with a trial for a claim by the widow of a deceased Vioxx user.  On March 2, 2007 the jury returned a preliminary verdict that Merck misled consumers and doctors by failing to warn of the dangers of Vioxx in the Humeston case.  The jury decided on March 12 that Vioxx caused Mr. Humeston's non-fatal heart attack and awarded damages of $20 Million and then awarded an additional $27.5 Million in punitive damages.  The fail to warn finding was not made in the other case being heard together involving a person who used Vioxx at later dates after the warning label had been changed. 

In January 2007 I was in South Beach, Miami for the Winter Conference of ATLA (now renamed the American Association for Justice or AAJ).  Vioxx at that point had taken a lower profile due to the fact that the case had been dragging on with mixed results and no sign of settlement. US trials were continuing. In Canada the class action consolidation was delayed by infighting among the lawyers.  The Merchant Law Group which failed to get carriage of the Ontario action is still on its own trying to get carriage of the claim in Manitoba and British Columbia against a united group of all other class action lawyers.  We supported the united group who in Ontario have prepared all materials for a certification motion which was to be heard in Ontario at the end of October. This was delayed by Merck who may soon be willing to discuss a Canadian settlement. In a case soon after Humeston we have seen Merck succeed again.  Another trial was set to begin in California during the week of April 9, 2007 for a 10 month Vioxx user who suffered a heart attack.  Most likely due to concern over uncertainty over results that Plaintiff withdrew his claim just before the start of trial.  On April 19 Merck's quarterly profits came out higher than expected after a good month for them with various products and good luck on Vioxx cases other than the Humeston one.  I participated in a US case update conference call on May 2 for the Cox-2 Litigation Group.  Cases were proceeding in large numbers through both New Jersey Court and the Federal Court in Multi District Litigation.  A New Jersey Court of Appeal was finalizing a review of the right to proceed by Canadian and other non-US plaintiffs.  A decision was made on July 31, 2007 that British Plaintiffs may not claim in New Jersey and we were waiting for a decision on Canadians also expected to be unfavourable.  As we are not allowed to proceed in the U.S Federal Court we were left with New Jersey as our only still possible option outside of Canada where Canadian rights are preserved under the Class Action.  The Canadian Class Action for Vioxx was co-ordinated in the courts by Mr. Justice Warren Winkler who is the most experienced judge for this type of case.  On June 1, 2007 Mr. Justice Winkler was appointed Chief Justice of Ontario and a new judge was assigned to manage the Vioxx Class Action.  The new Judge is Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity a very skilled former Osgoode Hall Law School Professor who has done much work with Class Actions over the past few years. The Class Certification hearing did not proceed as scheduled October 29 to 31 as the Defence asked for an adjournment.  The defence later arranged a futher adjournment of the certification motion from February 13, 2008. Michelle Brown of our firm attended the July AAJ Conference in Chicago where Vioxx cases were reported as making slow but steady progress with no major breaking developments.  A very good update on Vioxx cases was published in the New York Times on August 21, 2007.  It can be seen at my Now Public webpage:  www.nowpublic.com/mhmiskin 

On September 6 the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed a Vioxx Class Action by health care plans to reimburse them the cost they paid for Vioxx prescriptions.  This was a procedural ruling not based on the merits of the claim but simply on whether there was a basis under New Jersey law for a class action.  The claims will continue but on an individual basis by each drug plan.  There is a good Wall Street Journal review of the impact of the decision also posted at my Now Public Webpage. Our AAJ colleague Chris Seeger is handling this case and says it will not go away.  The decision has no effect on personal injury cases from Vioxx and no impact on the Canadian class action proceedings. Meanwhile under pressure from US judges whose courts are tied up by many thousands of cases there have been quiet settlement discussions taking place this year leading to a US settlement which does not include any Canadian or foreign claims.

   ON NOVEMBER 9TH THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED ACCURATELY THAT MERCK HAS AGREED TO SETTLE VIOXX LAWSUITS IN THE USA FOR $4.85 BILLION DOLLARS. THERE WERE 27,000 PENDING LAW SUITS BUT MANY WILL NOT QUALIFY FOR THE SETTLEMENT AND LAWYERS REPRESENTING CLIENTS WHO SETTLE ARE BEING REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT TO ABANDON THE CLIENTS WHOSE CASES DO NOT QUALIFY. THE SETTLEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO US CLAIMANTS AND NOT FOREIGN CLAIMS INCLUDING CANADIANS SUING IN THE US COURTS.  THE SETTLEMENT WAS A GOOD ONE  FROM MERCK'S POINT OF VIEW AS IT SET A HIGH STANDARD AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE AVERAGE PERSON WHO GETS COMPENSATION WILL GET ABOUT $180,000 INCLUSIVE OF THE LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES.  THIS IS A RESULT OF MERCK'S EFFECTIVE DEFENCE OF CLAIMS WHICH WENT TO TRIAL WHERE A MAJORITY OF THOSE CLAIMING LOST IN JURY TRIALS.  THE TOUGH DENIALS HAVE CLEARLY PAID OFF FOR MERCK WHOSE STOCK WENT UP AFTER THE SETTLEMENT WAS CONFIRMED. WE ANTICIPATE THE SAME STANDARD FOR PAYMENT OF CLAIMS WILL APPLY FOR CANADIAN CLAIMANTS BUT IT IS TOO SOON TO COMMENT ON THE LIKELY AMOUNT OF MONEY SUCCESSFUL CANADIAN CLAIMANTS WILL RECEIVE.  WE HAVE MAILED A LETTER TO ALL OF OUR CLIENTS ON WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 21 SETTING OUT THE SETTLEMENT  STANDARD WHICH ONLY COMPENSATES HEART AND STROKE VICTIMS WHO HAVE HAD OVER 30 VIOXX PILLS PRIOR TO THE EVENT. WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO SEE THAT AS MANY OF OUR CLIENTS AS POSSIBLE GET COMPENSATION AND THAT OUR CLIENTS GET THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE COMPENSATION.  WE BELIEVE SETTLEMENT IS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE TOO LONG FOR OUR CLIENTS' VIOXX CLAIMS. WE ARE ASKING ALL OTHER CANADIAN LAW FIRMS WITH VIOXX CLIENTS TO CONTACT US TO CO-ORDINATE OUR WORK.  WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF VIOXX CLAIMS IN CANADA. WE ARE CO-ORDINATING OUR EFFORTS WITH THOSE OF THE MONFORTON LAW FIRM WHICH REPRESENTS ABOUT 300 CLAIMANTS. WE ARE CONTACTING PROVINCIAL HEALTH INSURERS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE COSTS OF TREATING OUR CLIENTS TO FURTHER DOCUMENT OUR CASES AND AS PART OF OUR WORK WITH THE LAWYERS FOR THE PROVINCIAL HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS WHO HAVE CLAIMS FOR THOSE EXPENSES AGAINST MERCK.  WE ARE REACHING OUT TO DETERMINE HOW MANY SERIOUS VIOXX CLAIMS THERE ARE IN CANADA IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NEEDED TO SETTLE ALL CANADIAN VIOXX CLAIMS.  THIS WILL HELP IN CANADIAN NEGOTIATIONS AS MERCK WILL NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IT WILL TAKE TO SETTLE CLAIMS IN CANADA.

   MEANWHILE THE VIOXX CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION MOTION WHICH WAS PUT OVER FROM LATE OCTOBER IS SET TO BE HEARD IN COURT IN TORONTO ON FEBRUARY 13 HAS BEEN PUT OVER AGAIN.  THIS TIME MERCK ARGUED THAT THE FIRM OF  HARVEY STROSBERG SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED AS BEING ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FIRMS.  THAT IS BECAUSE ALLAN ROCK IS PART OF THAT FIRM NOW.  MR. ROCK, WHO HAS HELD MANY POSTS IN HIS DISTINGUISHED CAREER WAS MINISTER OF HEALTH WHEN VIOXX WAS APPROVED BY HIS MINISTRY. A DECISION FROM MR. JUSTICE CULLITY WAS MADE MARCH 4 FINDING THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT.  THIS DECISION IS UNDER APPEAL.   READ HERE FOR DETAILS. THE CERTIFICATION MOTION IS SET TO BE HEARD JUNE 24-27, AND THERE WILL BE DELAY AGAIN IF THE EVENTUAL RULING ON CERTIFICATION IS APPEALED. THIS APPEARS LIKELY AS MERCK HAS APPEALED CERTIFICATION OF THE SASKATCHEWAN CLASS ACTION. IF CERTIFICATION IS FINALLY GIVEN AND APPEALS END WE WILL THEN BE IN CONTACT WITH CLIENTS, WHO EACH WILL HAVE TO DECIDE, WHETHER TO BE PART OF THE VIOXX CLASS ACTION OR OPT OUT TO PURSUE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS.  WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CONTACTING PFIZER ABOUT SETTLEMENT OF BEXTRA CLAIMS WHICH WE ALSO HANDLE.  THAT COMPANY HAS QUIETLY BEGUN TO SETTLE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS. WE WILL, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, ADVISE EACH CLIENT OF THE FACTS AROUND SETTLEMENT AND THE CHOICE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO BE PART OF THE CLASS ACTION AND ADVISE THEM ON IT. THIS WILL NOT BE DONE AT THE WEBSITE NOR WILL I DISCUSS ANY SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AT THE WEBSITE BECAUSE THIS WEBSITE IS ACCESSIBLE TO ANYONE AND CONFIDENTIALITY IS NEEDED.

 IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO CONTACT US FOR NEW CLAIMS WHICH WE CAN INCLUDE FOR SETTLEMENT PROVIDED THEY MEET THE STANDARD OF HEART ATTACK OR STROKE WITH SUFFICIENT ADVANCE USE OF BEXTRA OR VIOXX.  Last updated: May 6, 2008

Elaine Doherty and her husband leave court after New Jersey trial verdict, with lawyer Jim Pettit of Locks Law Firm walking behind them.

will we swallow the next wonder drug?  An opinion

Bextra was recalled April 7, 2005.  We are proceeding with claims against Pfizer for heart and stroke conditions plus horrific skin disorders caused by allergic reactions to Bextra. With VIOXX CLAIMS SETTLING IT IS LIKELY THAT BEXTRA CLAIMS WILL SETTLE AS WELL.  IN ADDITION TO HEART ATTACK OR STROKE BEXTRA CAN CAUSE: