Court Denies Class Status for Plaintiffs Against Merck
Class Action News
[##_1L|1379216697.jpg|width="157" height="111" alt=""|_##]New Jersey's Supreme Court rejected on Thursday a class-action lawsuit against Merck & Company over the drug maker's withdrawn painkiller Vioxx. The ruling is a huge legal victory for the company, which faces nearly 27,000 individual lawsuits from people claiming that Vioxx, once a widely used arthritis treatment, caused heart attacks and strokes.
The state's highest court, reversing two lower court decisions, ruled that a nationwide class was not appropriate for the lawsuit. The suit had been brought by a union health plan on behalf of all insurance plans that paid for Vioxx prescriptions, or about 80 percent of all Vioxx sold.
A lawyer for the New Jersey union said that because the state's consumer fraud law allows for triple damages, the case could have cost Merck $15 billion to $18 billion. The company's annual revenue last year was $22.6 billion.
Had the class action been allowed to proceed, it also would have been a major setback to the company's strategy of fighting the Vioxx lawsuits individually. Of the cases that have reached verdicts, Merck has won nine and lost five. A new trial was ordered in one case, and two others ended in mistrials this year.
Shares of Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., rose more than 2 percent, to $50.47, Thursday.
"We were thrilled with the decision," said John Beisner, who argued the case for Merck.
Christopher A. Seeger, lead lawyer for the plaintiff, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 in West Caldwell, N.J., said he would pursue separate claims on behalf of individual health plans. He said that the high court did not rule that the state's consumer fraud law could not be applied to health plans from other states, so those claims could still be pursued in New Jersey, with the possibility of triple damages.
"Merck temporarily dodged a bullet," he said. "Merck didn't totally dodge the bullet."
Related listings
-
NJ Court Rejects Class Action Over Merck's Vioxx
Class Action News 09/06/2007[##_1L|1347335810.jpg|width="120" height="138" alt=""|_##]New Jersey's Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a huge potential class-action lawsuit against Merck & Co. over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx. The ruling is a huge legal victory for the dr...
-
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against ValueClick
Class Action News 09/06/2007The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP:Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf ...
-
Employee class action suit may hit Circuit City
Class Action News 08/31/2007[##_1L|1020051737.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]The California Supreme Court handed workers a major victory Thursday, allowing them to bring class-action lawsuits alleging labor code violations even if they had signed agreements with their e...

Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.