Rapplaw Blog

New York Law:

Firm news

Nursing Home & Assisted Care Abuse

Signs of Nursing Home Abuse

Bad Faith Insurance, Unreasonable Claim Denial

Slips and Falls, Dog Bites, Stairway Accidents

Pharmaceuticals Watch

The Vioxx Verdict: A Victory for the Greater Good

Friday, August 19th, was a day that marked the cardinal importance of consumer safety in America, as a Texas jury awarded the widow of a man whose fatal heart attack was linked to his long-term use of Vioxx, a painkiller used for arthritis relief, a verdict of $253 million. Merck & Co., the maker of Vioxx, earned more than $2.5 billion in 2003 alone from worldwide sales of the drug, which was taken by an estimated 84 million people. But in the wake of Friday’s verdict, it seems certain that any profits Merck made from Vioxx will be dwarfed by ensuing litigation. More than 4000 additional suits have been filed in the U.S., as Vioxx takers in other countries prepare for legal action as well.

Released in 1999, Vioxx was billed as one of many new drugs being created at that time to help patients battle arthritis pain and other physical discomforts. The ‘secret ingredient’ in Vioxx is called Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID), which prevented stomach cramps and other nagging pains that were the chief complaints of older arthritis medications, such as Alleve. But in September, 2004, Vioxx was recalled, as tests and studies sponsored by Merck & Co. had revealed a potential link between Vioxx and increased risks to heart attack, stroke and internal ulcers. The FDA and many industry experts believe that the use of NSAIDs in Vioxx created these additional risks.

The decision by the Texas jury was important for America. For many who work in defective products law and are concerned about the nearly unchecked power of Big Pharma, the Vioxx verdict showed how swiftly justice can restore proportion to the American way of life. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that. As big business lobbying on the federal level has doubled in the past five years, and as the White House and GOP Congress at times seem little more than puppets of business, industry and special interests, it is refreshing to know that at least our courts aren’t for sale. It’s inspiring to know that what 12 Americans believe is sometimes more powerful than the billions of dollars used to peddle influence in America’s halls of power.

The Appeals Process and Beyond: Will this be the first test of the Class Action Fairness Act?

In February of 2005, President Bush signed into law the Class Action Fairness Act (Bill # S. 5). This law took aggressive steps to limit the ability of plaintiffs to take legal action against companies which create and market defective products. In many respects, the CAFA legislation seems tailor-made to come to the defense of pharmaceutical companies like Merck & Co., which faces more than 4000 other Vioxx injury claims in the U.S., and potentially thousands more worldwide.

Will the federal government invoke CAFA to excuse Merck from the proceedings of justice? What about the makers of Pfizer, Bextra and other drugs that used NSAIDs? Will they seek shelter under CAFA as well? As Merck & Co. moves to appeal the Texas verdict, we may hear more than we want to about this new and convenient pro-business law.

Cut backs on Pharmaceutical Ads: Real Change of Just Changing Tactics?

On August 11, 2005, Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of Viagra and the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, announced that they would be delaying advertisements for new drugs for at least six months after they were made publicly available. This announcement came two months after Bristol-Myers Squibb's announcement that they would be holding off on advertising for at least one year until after new medicines were made available, and one month after Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) called for a two year moratorium on direct to consumer advertising, claiming that such advertising can lead to inappropriate prescribing to patients who don’t need those drugs.

Perhaps the Senate and Big Pharma have finally come to the correct moral conclusion that Direct to Consumer (DTC) advertising for doctor prescribed medicine isn’t a good thing for America. The parallels to tobacco advertising on television, which contributed to a dramatic increase in smoking in America throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, are palpable. After all, does an ad for a Super Bowl viewers to “..ask your Doctor about Propecia?” Perhaps that extra $2.4 million could have been used to investigate the side effects that caused birth defects when Propecia is handled by pregnant women.

Or perhaps the $640 million that Pfizer spent on advertising in 2004could have been used to drive down overhead costs, so the poor and elderly wouldn’t have to make those impossible decisions between rent and food or pain and illness each month.

So is Big Pharma finally putting people before profits? Are they putting the focus on quality research and consumer safety and helping to make it so that getting sick doesn’t mean bankruptcy anymore?

Again, nice thought, but doubtful. What is more likely is that complying with the ad reductions is Big Pharma's way of thanking the Senate for laws recently passed to further protect the legal and financial interests of pharmaceutical makers. Here are some examples:

In 2005, Bill Frist (with 29 other Senators) co-sponsored S 5, the Class Action Fairness Act, a bill that would limit damages for class action lawsuit defendants, and place jurisdiction at the federal level, with cases presided over by judges appointed by the President..

In 2006, when the new Medicare program goes into effect, the federal government has already earmarked $400 billion for Big Pharma in a new prescription drug benefit. Under the plan, many independent experts have calculated that pharmaceutical companies will make additional profits of $140 billion over eight years.