Originally published March 7 2005
Vioxx lawsuits face uphill battle in federal court
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Class-action suits seeking damages from Merck for negligence in the sale of the popular painkiller Vioxx may have a difficult road, according to legal experts. New American legal rules mean that group actions that request more than $5 million in compensation are now heard in Federal courts, which have a reputation for being significantly less sympathetic to class-action claims than the lower state courts.
The 53-year-old, from Skelmersdale, Lancashire, suffered two strokes after taking the drug and is now partially paralysed, registered blind and suffers epileptic fits.
Vioxx was withdrawn from sale by US firm Merck & Co in September last year after it was linked to heart attacks and strokes following medical trials.
The advisory committee of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) voted last week to allow its resale under certain conditions, but Merck says it has not yet decided whether it will.
Like many alleged victims of Vioxx, doctors prescribed the drug to Mrs Peckham in 1999 as an alternative to anti-inflammatory drugs, which have been linked to stomach ulcers.
At first she saw it as a "wonder drug" which eased the pain of her arthritis and allowed her to live a more active life.
"I was 49-years-old and I wasn't in any of the risk categories - I didn't drink, didn't smoke, wasn't overweight," she says.
Her solicitor, Gerard Dervan of MSB Solicitors in Liverpool, says they will take part in a group action in the US, where thousands of Vioxx users are seeking compensation.
London law firm Leigh, Day & Co is seeking a similar group action including up to 500 claimants in the UK courts under the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that Merck put a defective product for sale on the market.
Merck & Co's Dr Peter Kim said the firm tackled safety issues "head on" and it was only after medical trials in 2004 that evidence of a link to heart problems was discovered.
"Within one week of learning those results, Merck acted in what it believed was the best interest of patients and voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market," he said.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml