Our mission is to seek the complete truth and provide a full and fair account of the events and issues that surround personal safety, accident prevention, and injury recovery. We are committed to serving the public with honesty and integrity in these efforts. ...
LEARN MORE Merck statement Injuryboard on Vioxx Master Settlement Agreement New Jersey Supreme Court decision IMAGE SOURCE : Wikimedia Commons/ Human heart/ author: Dake Today the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that Vioxx users who want to continue medical monitoring to determine if they were harmed by the drug, do not have to be compensated by drugmaker, Merck & Co. The 5-1 ruling means a class-action lawsuit will be dismissed. Merck's position is that there is no reason that individuals need to be continuously monitored, four years after the drug was taken off the market. Many patients who took Vioxx for pain continued consulting with cardiac doctors and with electrocardiogram monitoring. Those individuals will not be eligible for a $4.85 billion settlement by Merck because they did not make a claim for harm, the court said. "Thus, we conclude that because plaintiffs cannot satisfy the definition of harm to state a product liability claim under the Product Liability Act, plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring damages must fail," the court said. Earlier, a trial court had decided to dismiss the medical monitoring suit. An appellate court disagreed, ruling the original dismissal was premature. This is just the latest in a string of victories for Merck, which pulled Vioxx from the market in 2004 after it was linked to a doubling in the risk of heart attack and stroke among patients who used the drug for at least 18 months. Rece ...
Anytime
LEARN MORE Merck statement Injuryboard on Vioxx Master Settlement Agreement New Jersey Supreme Court decision IMAGE SOURCE : Wikimedia Commons/ Human heart/ author: Dake Today the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that Vioxx users who want to continue medical monitoring to determine if they were harmed by the drug, do not have to be compensated by drugmaker, Merck & Co. The 5-1 ruling means a class-action lawsuit will be dismissed. Merck's position is that there is no reason that individuals need to be continuously monitored, four years after the drug was taken off the market. Many patients who took Vioxx for pain continued consulting with cardiac doctors and with electrocardiogram monitoring. Those individuals will not be eligible for a $4.85 billion settlement by Merck because they did not make a claim for harm, the court said. "Thus, we conclude that because plaintiffs cannot satisfy the definition of harm to state a product liability claim under the Product Liability Act, plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring damages must fail," the court said. Earlier, a trial court had decided to dismiss the medical monitoring suit. An appellate court disagreed, ruling the original dismissal was premature. This is just the latest in a string of victories for Merck, which pulled Vioxx from the market in 2004 after it was linked to a doubling in the risk of heart attack and stroke among patients who used the drug for at least 18 months. Rece ...