UPCOMING VIOXX TRIALS . . . For anyone keeping track of Vioxx trials, here's a list of trial settings for the rest of the year, compiled by the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Liaison Counsel in the federal MDL--

Federal Trials

• 7/24/06  . . . Barnett v. Merck
• 9/11/06  . . . Smith v. Merck
• 10/30/06 . . . Mason v. Merck
• 11/27/06 . . . Dedrick v. Merck

State Court Trials

• 6/5/06 . . . Doherty v. Merck (New Jersey)
• 6/21/06 . . . Trial setting, Plaintiff or Plaintiffs not yet chosen (California)
• 8/7/06 . . . Anderson v. Merck (Tribal Court of Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians)
• 9/11/06 . . . Hatch and McFarland v. Merck (New Jersey)
• 10/26/06 . . . Crook v. Merck (Jefferson County, Alabama)
• 11/8/06 . . . Miller v. Merck (Harris County, Texas)
• 12/11/06 . . . Albright v. Merck (Jefferson County, Alabama)
• 12/11/06 . . . Schwaller v. Merck (Madison County, Illinois)

My collected posts about the Vioxx litigation are here.

Comments

[Tom]

Thanks for the "Calendar of Events"
Considering that your group has filed about 25% of the Vioxx cases, how many of these 11 scheduled for trial are from your group?

[Evan]

Tom: With some exceptions, I don't want to discuss my own clients on the weblog. But I can say that I don't think my group has 25% of the total cases. Something less than that.

[Ray Ward]

Coincidentally, Slate ran a story today that's an interesting sidebar to the Vioxx litigation. Here's the URL:
http://www.slate.com/id/2142160/fr/rss/

[Ted]

Evan's group has about 10% of the plaintiff groups and 2-3% of the cases; they typically file ten-plaintiff complaints. The newspapers report the number of cases, while Evan's been reporting the number of plaintiffs. I don't think Schwaller is Evan's case.

The Slate article leaves out a lot of facts and gets others wrong: from the minor (APPROVe didn't involve naproxen controls) to the major (NEJM learned about the three additional heart attacks in 2001; Merck did disclose those heart attacks to doctors in February 2001 onward).