Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

A Plaintiff's Perspective

By Vance R. Andrus and Richard J. Arsenault
June 14, 2005

Dr. David Graham, a courageous FDA expert, blew the whistle and started a cascade of events that ultimately led to Merck & Co., Inc.'s withdrawal of its blockbuster drug Vioxx. Recently, he testified in Congress that Vioxx could be “the single greatest drug catastrophe of this country.” Various experts have postulated that Vioxx may be directly responsible for 20,000 to 160,000 heart attacks or strokes with perhaps as many as 40,000 deaths.

What happened? Should Merck be held responsible? This article, which is a condensation of a paper presented at a national Vioxx conference in November 2004, will present a very brief overview of the Vioxx controversy from a plaintiff's perspective. Portions in quotations are taken from the “Plaintiffs' Initial Statement/Position Paper,” prepared by the members of the PSC Executive Committee and filed in In Re: Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1657, USDC ED, LA.

There, the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (“PSC”) declared: “Plaintiffs pursuing products liability claims relating to their Vioxx use assert that Vioxx was a defectively designed product, no more effective and far less safe than other readily available (and less expensive) pain relievers. … The marketing and labeling of Vioxx overstated its gastrointestinal safety and efficacy, while omitting or minimizing significant cardiovascular risks associated with the drug.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.