A Phoenix resident filed a lawsuit against Merck & Company, alleging that the company purposely withheld information about the health risks associated with Vioxx.
The lawsuit, filed by Edward W. Wright in Arizona Superior Court, is the first statewide class action, according to his attorneys. Once certified by the court, the suit will represent any Arizona resident who purchased Vioxx over the past four years.
“Consumers all across Arizona purchased Vioxx, paying more than $2 a pill, about one hundred times the cost of regular aspirin,” Rob Carey, an attorney with the Hagens Berman law firm. “We believe that in addition to being held responsible for the enormous health implications, the makers of Vioxx owe consumers a financial obligation to return the huge profits they made in selling such a horribly flawed drug.”
The lawsuit alleges that Merck violated Arizona’s consumer fraud act and unjustly profited from its conduct.
According to the complaint, internal e-mails show Merck executives knew that Vioxx had safety risks, noting in one correspondence that undisclosed risks were “clearly there.” In spite of these concerns, Merck launched a massive direct-to-consumer campaign, spending more than $161 million in 2000 alone. That campaign propelled sales to $2 billion per year, the suit contends.
Merck pulled Vioxx from all worldwide markets on September 30, 2004, after a study confirmed that it increases a patients’ risk of heart attack and stroke after 18-months of use.
“We intend to prove that Merck executives intentionally and knowingly defrauded Arizona consumers by touting the benefits of this expensive drug, while withholding critical information about its shortcomings,” Carey said. “Had consumers been given all the information we believe Merck possessed about the safety of Vioxx, consumers would have chosen other, safer, less costly alternatives.”
Wright purchased Vioxx, unaware of the health risks associated with the drug, which the complaint claims Merck withheld. After taking the medication, Wright suffered a heart attack.
(via PR Newswire)
4 responses so far ↓
Jim Harris, esquire // Dec 15, 2004 at 9:39 am
To me it is appalling that Merck was hiding and minimizing known heart risks from its consumers and doctors. What makes their conduct even worse is that Vioxx was priced unreasonably high given its effectiveness. This is a true case of profits being placed before people and I applaud lawsuits such as is described in this article. I also applaud the suits being brought by individuals to hold Merck responsible for the damages they have caused.
JOSEPHINE SMITH // Dec 15, 2004 at 5:17 pm
I took vioxx for almost 2 years…had internal bleeding.I have secondary hypertension and kidney problem that I have to take medicines everyday.
Keith Reil // Dec 22, 2004 at 4:57 pm
i took vioxx for about 1 year and a half
i have gi bleeding,dizziness and an elevated liver.i am very disturbed that
a well known company would put something this dangerous out on the
market without doing their homework.
steve romej // Jan 12, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Looks like this site suffered a bit of comment spam above. As if email wasn’t enough, now blogs and anythign with comments. I had a small article on Vioxx at http://romej.com/content/2/The_Pains_of_Vioxx_and_Celebrex.
Now celebrex and even aleve are under investigation.
You must log in to post a comment.