- Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation
- The Top 12 Science Progress Features of 2008
- Breaking: Physicist John Holdren Is Likely Pick for Science Advisor
- Looking for a Research Bailout
- Want to Work Together? The Impact of Multi-University Collabortion
- “The Single Most Effective Way to Prevent the Transmission of Disease”
- Chu Is Bringing Science Back
- National Research Council: Nanotech Safety Needs a Closer Look. Much Closer.
- Neuroscience Everywhere
- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy, Part 4: The Office of Science and Technology Policy
- CNN Decides It Can Cover Science Without Dedicated Science Reporters
- Stem Cell Recommendations for the New Administration
After Years of Legal Hardball, Merck Settles Vioxx Case for $4.85 Billion
International drug maker Merck has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle lawsuits from individuals who say its painkiller Vioxx led to their heart attack or stroke, a significantly smaller sum than the $25 billion that was predicted to be the cost of settling the claims when Vioxx was taken off the market in September 2004. Vioxx, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribed for the management of pain, was shown in clinical studies to lead to an increased chance of negative cardiovascular events. The FDA estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.
The deal is set to cover about 47,000 sets of plaintiffs, with the average plaintiff receiving just more than $100,000 before legal fees, which can amount to as much as 30 percent of the actual settlement sum. To receive settlements, plaintiffs will not need to prove that Vioxx caused their heart attacks or strokes. But they will have to provide evidence that they did suffer a heart attack or a stroke, that the heart attack or stroke occurred less than two weeks after they last took Vioxx, and that they had taken Vioxx for at least one month.
The agreement may reflect a new strategy for businesses defending themselves against lawsuits. Instead of agreeing to a quick, early settlement, Merck aggressively defended itself in more than 20 Vioxx civil trials over the past few years, successfully convincing juries of its innocence in the majority of the cases. Playing hardball paid off for the company, with its settlement a mere fraction of what analysts had predicted years earlier.
In a country with an underperforming health system and the average consumer more vulnerable than ever to the whims of insurance companies and financially strapped medical centers, news of corporations like Merck going to bat against the American public and winning is not inspiring news. If we are serious about improving the health of our nation, steps need to be taken to ensure that companies like Merck cannot expect to get away with settlements that do not reflect the irreparable harm caused by its actions.
Comments on this article