قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The court reintroduces disputes against Merck over Vioxx

The court reintroduces disputes against Merck over Vioxx



A federal appeal court has evicted a lower court of law and restored a plaintiff's disputes against Merck & Co. Inc. in connection with its drug against Vioxx and stated that its claim was not limited by a five-year statute of limitations, based on the incomplete information available at that time.

Kenilworth, New Jersey-based Merck manufactured and distributed Vioxx as a drug to relieve pain and inflammation between 1992 and 2004, according to Monday's 2-1 judgment of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal in St. Louis in Jo Levitt v Merck & Co. Inc.

Ms. Levitt began taking Vioxx in the summer of 1999 and suffered from cardiovascular disease in March and May 2000 while taking the medication, although her doctor continued to prescribe the drug until 2002, which was around the time Merck changed the label to reveal the risk of cardiovascular disease. damage in connection with use. Merck removed it from the market in 2004, according to judgment.

Levitt filed a personal injury against Merck on September 29, 2006. The US District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, granted Merck's proposal to reject the case because it was banned by Missouri's five-year statute of limitations.

The question of whether Mrs Levitt is the case with the restriction regulations is a question of whether a jury should decide, the majority opinion said. [1

9659002] While early in 2000, the media covered reports of a possible link between Vioxx and cardiovascular diseases, "the scientific community's analysis was still preliminary," the opinion said.

"And Merck publicly stated at the time that no conclusions about cardiovascular risks could be obtained from the available studies."

The "temporary theory linking Vioxx to heart problems only appeared in the scientific community before September 29, 2001 "Then deciding to turn down the lower court and overruled the case for further negotiations.

The divergent sentence says that at the time when Ms. Levitt suffered from her cardiovascular disease in 2000, "information in the public domain was placed on a reasonably cautious person announcing a cause theory linking Vioxx to cardiovascular disease."

] Vioxx has led to nearly $ 5 billion in product liability litigation and $ 830 million in resolving a federal act of action against shareholders.

                    


Source link