Merck & Co. won’t face a class-action lawsuit filed by consumers seeking reimbursement for costs tied to the painkiller Vioxx, a California judge ruled, denying plaintiffs’ request to sue as a group.
Consumers who sued don’t meet legal requirements for a group claim, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney said in an April 30 ruling made public today. There appears to be no uniformity among the plaintiffs as to how much they paid for Vioxx, and their claims would require examination of each one’s medical history and prescription decisions, she said.
“Plaintiffs adduce no evidence indicating the inquiry can be conducted on a class-wide basis,” Chaney said in the ruling.
Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, agreed in 2007 to pay $4.85 billion to resolve lawsuits by people claiming Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes. The consumer case sought to recover money for economic losses in California, not personal injuries. The ruling was mailed to lawyers for both sides and made public by Merck today.
“The court rightly agreed this was not an appropriate case to proceed as a class action,” Merck attorney Ted Mayer, of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in New York, said today in a statement.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs sought to recoup the cost of the drug for all consumers in California who purchased Vioxx from its debut in June 1999 to Oct. 1, 2004, the day after Merck announced its recall. The lawyers argued that class members wouldn’t have purchased Vioxx, or paid so much for it, had they known the cardiac risks, Chaney said in the ruling.
New Jersey Denial
“The court finds the amount of money lost as a result of defendant’s alleged wrongdoing is not subject to common proof,” Chaney said.
Chaney’s ruling follows a March decision by New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee denying class certification to consumers who had sued in that state. Merck also won a ruling in 2007 from the New Jersey Supreme Court, which refused to certify a national class-action lawsuit over claims it misled health insurers about Vioxx’s safety.
Merck fell 42 cents, or 1.7 percent, to $24.79 at 1:26 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have declined 19 percent this year.
The case is In Re Vioxx Consolidated Class Action, JCCP 4247, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Consumers who sued don’t meet legal requirements for a group claim, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney said in an April 30 ruling made public today. There appears to be no uniformity among the plaintiffs as to how much they paid for Vioxx, and their claims would require examination of each one’s medical history and prescription decisions, she said.
“Plaintiffs adduce no evidence indicating the inquiry can be conducted on a class-wide basis,” Chaney said in the ruling.
Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, agreed in 2007 to pay $4.85 billion to resolve lawsuits by people claiming Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes. The consumer case sought to recover money for economic losses in California, not personal injuries. The ruling was mailed to lawyers for both sides and made public by Merck today.
“The court rightly agreed this was not an appropriate case to proceed as a class action,” Merck attorney Ted Mayer, of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in New York, said today in a statement.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs sought to recoup the cost of the drug for all consumers in California who purchased Vioxx from its debut in June 1999 to Oct. 1, 2004, the day after Merck announced its recall. The lawyers argued that class members wouldn’t have purchased Vioxx, or paid so much for it, had they known the cardiac risks, Chaney said in the ruling.
New Jersey Denial
“The court finds the amount of money lost as a result of defendant’s alleged wrongdoing is not subject to common proof,” Chaney said.
Chaney’s ruling follows a March decision by New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee denying class certification to consumers who had sued in that state. Merck also won a ruling in 2007 from the New Jersey Supreme Court, which refused to certify a national class-action lawsuit over claims it misled health insurers about Vioxx’s safety.
Merck fell 42 cents, or 1.7 percent, to $24.79 at 1:26 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have declined 19 percent this year.
The case is In Re Vioxx Consolidated Class Action, JCCP 4247, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
No comments:
Post a Comment