The second personal injury Vioxx lawsuit to go to trial started on Wednesday in New Jersey-just one month after a Texas jury found Merck and Co. liable for the death of a man taking Vioxx and awarded his widow $253.5 million.

The plaintiff, 60-year-old postal worker, Vietnam veteran, Frederick “Mike” Humeston, claims that Vioxx caused his heart attack in September 2001, just two months after his doctor prescribed him Vioxx to relieve pain from a war injury.

Humeston maintains that long before Vioxx was first marketed in the United States, Merck knew that the drug carried cardiovascular risks.

The case is one of about 2,400 Vioxx lawsuits pending in New Jersey state court against Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after a study found that it increases a patients’ risk of heart attack and stroke after 18 months of use.

More than 4,000 Vioxx lawsuits have been filed against Merck.

(via SeegerWeiss LLP)

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) last week, challenging a policy that it claims curbs competition from online real estate brokers. The Department said that NAR’s policy prevents consumers from receiving the full benefits of competition and threatens to lock in outdated business models and discourages discounting.

“The purchase of a home is one of the most significant financial decisions a family can make, and NAR’s policy stifles competition to advantage some of its members at the expense of home buyers and sellers across the country,” J. Bruce McDonald, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department’s Antitrust Division, said. “Consumers benefit when real estate brokers are free to compete vigorously by offering innovative services.”

In a statement, the National Association of Realtors said it was “shocked and disappointed” in the Justice Department’s decision to sue them after several discussions over a policy it claims no longer exists.

The new ILD policy consolidates and replaces both the VOW policy and NAR’s Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policy to create a single, unified policy governing the Internet display of all property information originating from the more than 800 multiple listing services owned and operated by Realtor(R) organizations.

Under the new policy, all MLS property listing data available for display will automatically be available to all MLS members unless a member notifies the MLS in advance that he or she does not want to participate (opt out) in Internet Listing Display. In that case, none of the listings he or she enters into the MLS will be available for display on other brokers’ Web sites nor will he or she be allowed to display other brokers’ listings on his or her own Web site.

In its complaint, the Department alleges that NAR’s policy restrains competition by requiring NAR-affiliated MLSs to adopt rules that will allow brokers to withhold their clients’ listings from other brokers’ websites by means of an “opt out.” In essence, NAR’s policy enables traditional brokers to block their competitors’ customers from having full on-line access to all of the MLS’s listings, the Justice Department contends. When exercised, the opt-out provision prevents web-based brokers from providing all MLS listings that respond to a customer’s search, effectively inhibiting the new technology, the Department said.

Delivering listings over the Internet gives web-savvy consumers more control over their search for a home, allowing them to educate themselves about their options at their own pace and on their own time. This allows brokers to reduce the time that their agents spend searching the MLS database or showing homes the customer dislikes, the Department said. Because the Internet can be used to deliver brokerage services more efficiently - resulting in better service and lower costs to consumers - brokers who utilize the Internet represent a competitive challenge to traditional brokers, the Department added.

“NAR’s policy significantly alters the rules that govern MLSs by permitting traditional brokers to discriminate against other brokers based on their business model, denying them the full benefits of MLS participation,” Department said.

The lawsuit seeks to ensure that traditional brokers, through NAR’s policy, cannot deprive consumers of the benefits that would flow from these new ways of competing.

(via U.S. Department of Justice)

The first of 6,000 welding rod lawsuits scheduled to go to trial in the U.S. District Court in Cleveland was settled for undisclosed amount, said to be seven figures, the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

The lawsuit, filed by Charles Ruth, 38, a shipyard worker, said his neurological problems were caused from exposure to welding rod fumes. Ruth worked at Ingalls Shipyard, in Pascagoula, Miss.

Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases allege that fumes produced during welding contain manganese. Manganese is known to cause Manganese Poisoning, Parkinsonism and Parkinson’s disease.

But the welding industry says there is no link between mild steel welding and Parkinson’s disease or Parkinson’s-like movement disorders.

(via The Associated Press)

Nearly 2,000 Vioxx lawsuits that were consolidated in a federal court in New Orleans are being moved to Houston, temporarily, because of the devastation caused from Hurricane Katrina, The Associated Press reported Tuesday.

The lawsuits filed against Merck & Company allege death and heart problems from taking the company’s withdrawn arthritis and pain relief drug Vioxx.

(via The Associated Press)

In the first verdict of nearly 2,000 lawsuits involving dioxin exposure from a chemicals plant, a Mississippi jury found DuPont DeLisle liable for Glen Strong’s rare blood cancer and awarded him $14 million. His wife received $1.5 million for loss of “love and companionship,” The Associated Press reported Tuesday.

Strong, an oyster fisherman, and 1,995 other plaintiffs filed lawsuits claiming releases of dioxins from the DuPont the titanium dioxide plant caused a variety of health problems, including myeloma.

DuPont officials deny any link between the plant and any health effects alleged by plaintiffs and intend to appeal the verdict.

Furthermore, DuPont announced Wednesday that Hurricane Katrina caused extensive flooding at two of its facilities in Mississippi, including the titanium dioxide plant at DeLisle.

(via The Associated Press)

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit on Thursday against 39 pharmaceutical companies, accusing them of defrauding the state of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants attempted to maximize profits by engaging in insidious sales schemes to increase market share. Specifically, they provided false and misleading information with full knowledge that the state would rely on their data in setting the amount of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products covered by the Medi-Cal program.

“We’re dragging these drug companies into the court of law because they’re gouging the public on basic life necessities,” Lockyer said. “This may be a bitter pill for the drug companies to swallow, but the days of prescription pricing fraud are over.”

Defendants named in the lawsuit include Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Schering-Plough and Wyeth.

Lockyer’s action was prompted by a whistleblower lawsuit filed in California by a small pharmacy, Ven-A-Care, alleging that these pharmaceutical manufacturers provided false and misleading drug pricing information that the Medi-Cal program relied upon to establish its drug payment rates.

An investigation into Ven-A-Care’s allegations revealed extensive pricing manipulation that led to Lockyer filing legal action against two major drug manufacturers, Abbott Laboratories and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, in 2003. However, based on additional evidence gathered through ongoing investigations, Lockyer filed Thursday an amended complaint expanding the original lawsuit by adding more than 30 additional drug makers as defendants.

In California, health care providers are reimbursed for drugs dispensed to Medi-Cal patients.

The reimbursement rates are based on pricing data supplied by drug manufacturers. Lockyer’s suit alleges that the drug makers manipulated the prices, resulting in inflated costs to the state’s $34 billion Medi-Cal program, which provides essential health care to poor, elderly and disabled Californians.

“This scheme has cost California taxpayers potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, and is jeopardizing the public health by diverting money away from patient care. The amount of money that drug companies have cheated out of California could have been better spent on ensuring that every child in this state has access to health care,” said Lockyer.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, MA. It alleges that the defendants, for the purpose of capturing greater market control, knowingly caused the filing of false claims for reimbursement by the state. California’s False Claims Act provides up to treble damages and penalties of up to $10,000 per false claim.

(via Office of California State Attorney General)

In the first of thousands of Vioxx lawsuits to go to trial, a Texas jury on Friday found Merck and Co. liable for the death of man taking its arthritis drug Vioxx and awarded his widow $253.5 million.

The jury awarded Mr. Robert Ernest’s widow Carol $24.5 million for mental anguish and loss of companionship and $229 million in punitive damages.

Merck said it intends to appeal the verdict.

“Friday’s verdict in Texas was a disappointment to all of us at Merck because we know we acted responsibly,” Merck said in a statement. “The case presented to the jury by the plaintiff was fundamentally flawed. The jury was allowed to hear testimony that was not based on reliable science and that was irrelevant.”

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after a study confirmed that it increases a patients’ risk of heart attack and stroke after 18 months of use.

More than 4,000 Vioxx lawsuits have been filed against Merck.

(via Business Wire)

The Food and Drug Administration has denied a petition by a consumer group to ban the prescription weight-loss drug Meridia (sibutramine) made by Abbott Laboratories Inc.

The petition, filed by Public Citizen in March 2002 and renewed in September 2003, asserted that Meridia was related to heart attacks and strokes. It cited 49 heart-related deaths and at least 126 serious cardiovascular adverse reactions resulting in hospitalization in patients taking Meridia. Ten of the 19 cardiac deaths were in people 50 or younger, including three women under the age of 30.

In a statement released Wednesday, Public Citizen said: “Once again, the FDA is siding with a large drug company, much as the agency did several years ago with Merck concerning Vioxx, when it failed to demand a black box warning on that drug.”

Public Citizen added: “How many more dangerously flawed decisions will the FDA make before the Congress repeals the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which brings the agency ever closer to - and makes the agency less vigilant over - the companies that give it almost $200 million a year in funding?”

An independent review of Meridia by researchers from the University of Washington, published one year ago, the authors concluded that: “Weight loss with sibutramine was associated with modest increases in heart rate and blood pressure. … There was no direct evidence that sibutramine reduces obesity-associated morbidity or mortality. … Thus, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to accurately determine the risk-benefit profile for sibutramine.

(via Public Citizen)

Lawyers on both sides in the nation’s first Vioxx-related trial are expected to make their final arguments Wednesday, The Associated Press reported Monday.

The plaintiff, Carol Ernst, alleges that Merck and Co.’s painkiller Vioxx caused the sudden death of her husband, Robert Ernst, in May 2001 after he had taken the drug for eight months to ease the pain in his hands.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market after a study confirmed that it increases a patients’ risk of heart attack and stroke.

(via The Associated Press)

The Food and Drug Administration announced strengthen new regulations Friday for the acne drug Accutane-aimed at preventing use of the drug during pregnancy. Women who are pregnant or who might become pregnant should not take the drug, the Agency said.

Accutane (and its generics) is a highly effective drug for severe recalcitrant nodular acne, but it carries a significant risk of birth defects if taken during pregnancy.

The regulations require doctors and patients who agree to accept specific responsibilities before receiving authorization to prescribe or use Accutane. The FDA said these measures are designed to guard against pregnancies while using Accutane. Wholesalers and pharmacies must also comply with the manufacturers’ program requirements in order to distribute and dispense the product.

“This stronger program is a major step in protecting against inadvertent pregnancy exposure by tightly linking negative pregnancy testing with dispensing of isotretinoin,” Dr. Steven Galson, Director, FDA’s Center for Evaluation and Research, said.

In February 2004, at a joint meeting, FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed the existing Accutane risk management programs in effect at that time. Based upon their review, the joint committee called for major improvements in the restricted distribution program, including mandatory registration to ensure that patients who could become pregnant have negative pregnancy testing and birth control counseling before receiving the drug.

(via U.S. Food and Drug Administration)