Vioxx Bextra recall lawsuits move in high gear

In one of the first Vioxx lawsuits to go on trial, Merck argued that Cheryl Rogers, widow of Howard Rogers (who passed away at the young age of 42) after taking Vioxx, was a liar. Merck argued that Howard Rogers never took Vioxx since the bottles that Cheryl Rogers has presented as evidence of his taking the drug show that that specific batch of the drug was made months after her husband died. (Related article: Merck continues its ferocious attack on Vioxx victims)

Beasley Allen, co-lead counsel for all Vioxx litigation, rejected Merck's attempts to dismiss the case, scheduled to go to court in late May. The story made headlines in The New York Times article of April 13, 2005 entitled, "Merck Asks for Dismissal in First of Suits Over Vioxx." He is the sole counsel for Cheryl Rogers. He now says that Merck's contention that Rogers never took the drug directly opposes the evidence he will supply in court. (Related article: Merck vows to fight Vioxx class action lawsuits vigorously)

According to the article, Merck requested dismissal in the Circuit or State Court of Clay County in Ashland, Alabama, case number CV 03-073, Cheryl Rogers V. Merck. Jere Beasley, founder and senior partner of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles expressed shock saying that, "Merck's claims are unfounded and are a desperate attempt to avoid a day in court for a victim's family, and account for a drug that is responsible for thousands of deaths. In my opinion, they are trying to force us out of the case by making a most serious accusation against our client." "The key issue in the Rogers case is: Did Brad Rogers take Vioxx and did it kill him," Mr. Beasley explained. "We have evidence to prove that he was taking Vioxx before his death. An autopsy proved that the drug caused his death. We know from medical records of Mr. Rogers that he was prescribed Vioxx and that he took Vioxx on a regular basis before his death. We will prove our case in the courtroom." He added, "Clinical tests have shown that Vioxx is a terribly dangerous drug. It has killed literally thousands of unsuspecting victims who trusted the company and who had no idea that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes. FDA safety officer Dr. David Graham testified to Congress that taking Vioxx caused over 40,000 deaths." (Related article: FDA should have never approved Vioxx)

The Montgomery, Alabama based law firm has been in the forefront of the effort to have all of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (Bextra, Celebrex, and Vioxx) taken off the market since the law firm took on its first case against Merck over 4 years ago. Beasley Allen is spearheading the review of over 31,000 claims against the manufacturers of Bextra, Celebrex, and Vioxx, having filed 161 cases to date. He is currently evaluating more than 10,000 Vioxx cases and expects to file hundreds of lawsuits against Merck in the coming months. Beasley Allen has also been named co-lead counsel on all Vioxx lawsuits

The firm also included Pfizer in its attack today charging that Bextra recall may have been a step too late. Beasley Allen has 36 Bextra lawsuits pending against Pfizer, and another 1,000 cases to be filed. "Bextra has not only shown an increased risk for serious cardiovascular events in patients, it has also been linked to Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS), a skin disease that produces deadly, widespread lesions," according to attorney Paul Sizemore who is handling 1,000 potential Bextra cases for the firm. "Problems with this drug have been recognized for some time in the medical community," says Sizemore. He cites the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery as reported in 2003: "Statistically significant increase in thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction, ischemia, cerebrovascular accident, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism) found in the group treated with Bextra (paracoxib/valdecoxib) post-op as compared to the placebo group. The relative risk for a thromboembolic event was 351 percent." Sizemore reveals that a second similar study was conducted by Pfizer, with results released in October 2004. This study again showed a statistically significant rise in the incidence of thromboembolic events where the relative risk was 288 percent. (Related article: A new study finds Celebrex as dangerous as Vioxx)

Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, a cardiologist and pharmacologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a New York Times interview on November 10, 2004: "The magnitude of the safety signal with Bextra is even higher than what we saw in Vioxx... this is a time bomb waiting to go off." Dr. Curt Furberg, Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, was quoted in the same article as saying: "Bextra is no different than Vioxx, and Pfizer is trying to suppress that information." (Related article: Original Bextra safety update from Pfizer)

"Pfizer has long ignored the safety signals associated with Bextra, ignored the warnings from leading scientists about its hazards, and ignored the results of multiple clinical studies evidencing a clear safety risk associated with this drug," says Sizemore. "Were it not for the renewed safety focus within the FDA, no doubt triggered by the Vioxx debacle, Pfizer would have continued to market and profit from a drug whose risks were not only well known, but also well proven,” adds Sizemore.

Recommended articles

Bextra lawsuits also being filed in Canada

Bextra recall does not help Celebrex