Merck has poor defense in Vioxx class action lawsuit
In the media frenzy generated after Merck lost its first Vioxx trial in the lawsuit filed by Carol Ernst and the ongoing coverage of forthcoming trial in the Humeston case, many have not paid enough attention to what other problems Merck faces during coming months.
As we had reported earlier, Judge Carol Higbee allowed International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 Welfare Fund in New Jersey to file a class action lawsuit against the company. There is a very interesting twist to these types of cases. The plaintiffs do not have to prove that anyone actually got injured since the lawsuit was filed under the Consumer Fraud Act of New Jersey. They have to merely show that Merck used fraudulent business practices. That is extremely easy to do since there is a mountain of evidence provided by the company that implicates itself. The company does have a case to make in some instances where it may be able to show that the victim did not suffer a heart attack from Vioxx but had it due to another reason like obesity or smoking or high blood pressure.
While Merck’s liabilities are estimated to be as much as $65 billion, if Merck loses this case, the payments could be even higher. While Medicaid and Medicare programs are not part of this class, to give you an idea, Texas Attorney General is demanding $168 million from Merck for committing fraud in the State of Texas alone.
It will be an interesting case to watch since Chris Seeger, who is the lead lawyer in this case is also the lawyer for Mike Humeston – whose lawsuit goes to trial on September 12.
Recommended article: Merck hints that it may settle some cases
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.