NJ court dismisses Vioxx medical monitoring suit.The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Vioxx Vi·oxx A trademark for the drug rofecoxib. Vioxx® Rofecoxib Pain management A COX-2 inhibitor used to manage osteoarthritic pain, acute pain in adults, primary dysmenorrhea. See COX-2 inhibitor. users who suffered no known harm from the withdrawn pain drug cannot sue Merck to pay for medical tests and treatment by heart doctors, Reuters reported June 4. In the latest in a string of recent legal victories for Merck, the court agreed with a trial court that dismissed the medical monitoring suit in 2005. An appellate court A court having jurisdiction to review decisions of a trial-level or other lower court. An unsuccessful party in a lawsuit must file an appeal with an appellate court in order to have the decision reviewed. later ruled that the original dismissal was premature. Under the ruling, former Vioxx users will not be permitted to sue Merck to pay for electrocardiograms and follow-up consultations with cardiologists. The 5-1 ruling by the state's highest court means a class-action lawsuit lawsuit: see procedure; tort. by people who used the once-popular painkiller will be dismissed. One justice did not participate. The lawsuit was filed by Vioxx users who claim they have no immediate symptoms but that use of the drug gives them a greater risk of developing illness. So they want diagnostic testing Diagnostic testing Testing performed to determine if someone is affected with a particular disease. Mentioned in: Von Willebrand Disease to uncover any hidden or developing problems. Because they aren't claiming they have an injury, they aren't eligible for the settlement Merck announced in November. Merck agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle thousands of U.S. personal injury lawsuits involving a heart attack, stroke or death. Some 45,000 eligible claimants had initiated enrollment as of March 31. The high court said that since the Vioxx users in the case don't claim injury, they "cannot satisfy the definition of harm" in seeking medical monitoring under the state's Product Liability Act. In dissent An explicit disagreement by one or more judges with the decision of the majority on a case before them. A dissent is often accompanied by a written dissenting opinion, and the terms dissent and dissenting opinion are used interchangeably. , Justice Virginia A. Long argued that the law encompassed a broad definition of harm and includes the concept that an "increased risk of injury that creates a need for medical surveillance" is a recognizable harm. Merck applauded the majority's decision. "The N.J. Supreme Court has made it clear that you cannot bring a medical monitoring claim unless you allege To state, recite, assert, or charge the existence of particular facts in a Pleading or an indictment; to make an allegation. allege v. you were injured in·jure tr.v. in·jured, in·jur·ing, in·jures 1. To cause physical harm to; hurt. 2. To cause damage to; impair. 3. by a product. The plaintiffs in this suit sought to recover from Merck even though Vioxx has been off the market for almost four years and they do not claim that it ever injured them," Merck lawyer Ted Mayer said in a statement. The company also maintained there is no medical science supporting the plaintiffs' position that they need to be monitored for cardiovascular cardiovascular /car·dio·vas·cu·lar/ (-vas´ku-ler) pertaining to the heart and blood vessels. car·di·o·vas·cu·lar adj. Abbr. conditions nearly four years later. Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after its own study showed Vioxx doubles risk of heart attack or stroke. |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion