New York State and City Sue Merck Over Vioxx

Merck & Co. Inc. is being sued by both the sate and city of New York. Merck is a global pharmaceutical company, which provides products such as Vioxx, Singulair, and Gardasil, the one and only HPV virus vaccine on the market (see product list). A lawsuit was filed against Merck in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan accusing Merck of, " ...intentionally concealing the dangers of Vioxx, and therefore defrauding the state Medicaid program, which paid for the prescriptions." Many individuals are also suing Merck for damages. Vioxx was originally prescribed as a painkiller for arthritis and migraines, but led to a high risk of heart attacks and strokes. (NYT Article)

RESEARCH: Vioxx became available to consumers in 1999 and was withdrawn in 2004. Many elderly used Vioxx to treat arthritis, therefore Medicaid and The Elderly Pharmaceutical Insurance Program spent over $100 million on prescriptions. There are over 25,000 lawsuits pending against Merck. States including New York, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Utah and Texas have all filed demanding reimbursement, claiming consumer and Medicaid fraud, and voicing concerns about the safety of the product. The New York lawsuit claims that if the manufacturer had informed doctors about the risks of taking Vioxx, they would not have prescribed it.

PLANNING: Although the steps of the planning process are unclear, it is clear that Merck planned on addressing the public. Merck also planned on taking Vioxx off the market, which the did in 2004. It would be a reasonable assumption that Merck and it's lawyers prepared for legal matters after removing the product from the market and becoming aware of consumer side effects. Merck planned on fighting each case individually and set aside almost $2 billion for litigation costs (IHT article).

COMMUNICATION: Much information is available on Merck's website under the Vioxx Information Center link. They also issued a statement in September 2006 stating that, "...there is no basis for the claim that Merck knowingly put patients at risk for cardiovascular events." Merck lawyers claim that New York's allegations are unfounded. Kent Jarrell, a spokesperson on Merck's legal defense team, states that Merck acted responsibly in previously researching the drug, monitoring it while available, and withdrawing it when they did. The FDA issued a public health advisory in accordance with Merck removing the product for safety concerns.

EVALUATION: Within the last few months, New Jersey courts have ruled in favor of Merck in numerous court battles, however, they have also been found guilty in some instances and are appealing. In Texas, Merck was charged with having to pay over $250 million in damages. People from Britain have also tried to sue Merck, but a New Jersey court ruled that their legal matters cannot be argued in a Unites States court. Good for Merck. The biggest PR issue for Merck is that some are claiming that Merck knew about the harmful effects and kept selling the drug anyway because they were only concerned with revenue.

In my opinion, if Merck can convince people that they were completely ignorant of the safety concerns, then I think they will continue to be successful--that is if they don't go bankrupt first. They need to keep positive public opinion and fix what they have damaged. Standing behind their faulty product is not the route I would have taken. We'll see how they stand up in court!