Newsworthy enough to talk about in a law school classroom, here's a quick summary of the Vioxx mess from Fortune magazine's November 1st cover story--
Headline on the cover: "Merck's $27 Billion Heart Attack." Headline inside: "Will Merck Survive Vioxx?" Number of Americans who took fen-phen: 6 million Amount of money paid so far to settle fen-phen lawsuits: $16.6 billion Number of Americans who took Vioxx: 20 million Fortune's prediction of the cost of the Vioxx litigation: "The cost of settling the lawsuits will almost surely be in the billions of dollars, quite possibly in the tens of billions." Number of people who took Vioxx worldwide: 80 million Market cap lost since Vioxx was withdrawn from the market: $33 billion Boast Merck made about Vioxx in its 1999 Annual Report: The "biggest, fastest, and best launch ever." Date Merck began the study that led to what it says was the first evidence of a heart risk: 1999 When plaintiffs' lawyers say Merck first knew about a heart risk: As early as 1996 Number of lawyers named in the article: 5 Number of documents already produced in the New Jersey Vioxx litigation: 3 million Plaintiffs' lawyers named in the article: Jere Beasley, Chris Seeger, and Andy Birchfield, Jr. Defense lawyer named in the article: Amy Shulman Other lawyers named in the article: Kenneth Frazier, Merck's general counsel Annual sales of Vioxx until its withdrawal: $2.5 billion Money Merck spent on direct-to-consumer advertising: $500 million Quote from a pissed-off doctor, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine: "Had the company not valued sales over safety, a suitable trial could have been initiated rapidly [to pin down Vioxx's cardiovascular risk] at a fraction of the cost of Merck's direct-to-consumer advertising campaign." Quote from Merck's general counsel: "We communicated appropriately, and in the end we took the actions that were in the best interests of patients." Number of times the article mentions tort reform: 0
There you have it. For a detailed field guide to the lawyers who will be sorting out the Vioxx mess for the next five or ten years, see my Cast of Characters.
UPDATE 2/14/04. For all of my collected Vioxx posts, look here. If you are (a) someone who was harmed by Vioxx or (b) a lawyer who wants to refer your Vioxx cases to a highly-competent team of mass-tort lawyers, look here.
I have been disappointed with the quality of the Vioxx commercials. Could they get any worse? Are lawyers too tight to pay for a decent commercial? I saw Johnnie's commercial yesterday, and it disappointed me too. If Johnnie can't make a decent commercial, then can anyone?
Posted by: JR | October 27, 2004 at 02:31 PM
JR: Ah, you must be talking about "The Lawyer Who Advertises on TV".
I've noticed some poor ads too. The poor quality might be due to the fact that advertising lawyers fell all over themselves to get their ads on the air RIGHT NOW! Lately, I've been seeing an ad that is factually inaccurate in a lot of respects. If it ever ends up on my TIVO machine, I'll post the text here and give a full critique.
Full disclosure: I advertise now and then, but rarely on TV. My public comments on Vioxx have (so far) been limited to my weblogs. I do have some Vioxx clients, though.
Posted by: Evan | October 27, 2004 at 02:47 PM
It is interesting that you mention that Merck knew as early as 1996 that Vioxx had problems. That would be a big piece of news.
Posted by: Vioyy recall | December 02, 2004 at 01:35 PM