Vioxx Litigation

---

September 30, 2004: Merck begins a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of its pain-reliever drug, Vioxx, which has been linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

November 8, 2004: Merck and Co., maker of Vioxx, is served with a subpoena from the Department of Justice and is the subject of a probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

January 25, 2005: According to a study published by Food and Drug Administration safety reviewer David Graham, as many as 140,000 heart attacks in the US may have been caused by Vioxx before it was taken off the market.

February 15, 2005: The FDA announces that it will create an independent drug safety board in response to criticism in the wake of the Vioxx recall.

February 16, 2005: The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigns all pending Vioxx product liability lawsuits to Judge Eldon Fallon of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans.

March 18, 2005: The US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana begins pre-trial hearings, launching the federal liability case against Merck & Co., producers of the painkilling product Vioxx.

April 29, 2005: An Alabama Circuit Court refuses to dismiss the first wrongful-death suit brought against Merck for their painkiller Vioxx.

July 11, 2005: Jury selection begins in the first of over 3,800 state and federal lawsuits against Merck, alleging that the company knew its popular painkiller Vioxx was dangerous before it voluntarily pulled the drug from the market in September 2004.

July 14, 2005: The first trial against Merck for distributing the drug Vioxx while aware of an increased chance of heart attack and stroke begins in Texas with opening statements from both sides.

August 19, 2005: A Texas jury awards a $253.4 million verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widow of a man who suffered cardiac arrest after using Vioxx.

August 25, 2005: Merck considers settling some of the thousands of state and federal lawsuits it faces for the distribution of Vioxx, according to a spokesman for the company's legal team.

August 29, 2005: A New Jersey judge rejects a motion by Merck to postpone its scheduled second trial, saying that a $253 million verdict handed down by a Texas jury earlier did not preclude a fair trial for Merck in Atlantic City New Jersey.

September 9, 2005: Merck says that it has no plans to make a comprehensive deal to settle the thousands of cases against the company concerning side effects of Vioxx.

September 17, 2005: The New Orleans-based federal judge charged with co-ordinating the approximately 1800 pending federal lawsuits relating to the withdrawal of Vioxx from pharmacists' shelves last year rules that the first federal trial against Merck will take place in Houston beginning November 28.

November 3, 2005: A New Jersey jury finds that Merck properly warned consumers about the risks associated with Vioxx in the second Vioxx case.

November 29, 2005: The first federal Vioxx trial, in which Evelyn Irvin Plunkett sues Merck for the death of husband Richard "Dicky" Irvin of a heart attack in May 2001, begins with an opening statement from Plunkett's lawyer, who tells jurors that Irvin died as a direct result of taking Vioxx.

December 12, 2005: The judge in the first federal Vioxx case declares a mistrial after the jury reported that it was deadlocked.

February 6, 2006: The retrial of the first federal lawsuit against the manufacturers of Vioxx begins in New Orleans with jury selection.

February 17, 2006: A federal jury clears Merck of responsibility in the death of a Florida man who had taken Vioxx in the first federal lawsuit over Vioxx.

March 6, 2006: Opening statements begin in the second New Jersey state trial against New Jersey-based Merck, with plaintiffs alleging that damage occurred through the long-term use of the drug, an element missing in the previous New Jersey case.

March 31, 2006: A New Jersey appeals court upholds a July 2005 trial court decision to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs suing Merck for damages relating to Vioxx.

April 5, 2006: New Jersey state court jury renders a split verdict after two days of deliberations in a joint trial that pitted two state residents who took Vioxx against Merck.

April 11, 2006: A jury awards $9 million in punitive damages to a New Jersey man who sued Merck on grounds that his prolonged use of Vioxx caused him to suffer a heart attack, marking the first suit involving facts of long-term use.

April 21, 2006: A Texas state jury finds Merck liable for the death of a 71-year-old man who died from a heart attack within a month of taking Vioxx, in the sixth Vioxx case to reach a verdict.

July 13, 2006: A New Jersey state jury in Atlantic City finds Merck not liable for a woman's heart attack, saying that Merck adequately warned doctors of the health risks from Vioxx, in the seventh Vioxx trial to reach a verdict.

August 2, 2006: A California jury finds Merck not liable for causing the heart attack of 71-year old Stewart Grossberg, determining Vioxx did not cause Grossberg's heart ailments.

August 17, 2006: In the ninth Vioxx trial to reach a verdict, a federal jury in New Orleans finds Merck negligent for failing to warn doctors about the risks associated with taking Vioxx and found that Merck knowingly misrepresented the risks involved.

August 17, 2006: A New Jersey state court vacates a November verdict finding Merck not liable for the heart attack of Frederick Humeston after lawyers for the plaintiff present new evidence showing that Merck withheld evidence during the trial.

August 30, 2006: US District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana throws out a jury verdict holding Merck liable for $50 million in compensatory damages to a retired FBI agent who claimed Vioxx caused his heart attack, calling the award "grossly excessive."

September 26, 2006: In the third federal ruling on Vioxx and the first ruling to involve a claimant who took the drug after the label was changed, a federal jury in Louisiana finds Merck not liable for the heart attack of plaintiff Robert Garry Smith after he took Vioxx for about four months.

October 5, 2006: New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee issues an order striking down about 50 lawsuits brought by British plaintiffs in the New Jersey state court against Merck.

October 18, 2006: A civil court in Berlin dismisses two claims against a German distributor of Vioxx, citing plaintiffs' failures in both cases to demonstrate a causal connection between the drug and symptoms.

November 15, 2006: A federal jury sitting in New Orleans rules that Merck is not liable for damages allegedly caused by the heart attack of a Utah man, Charles Laron "Ron" Mason, 64, who had taken the painkiller for a 10 1/2 month period. This was the eleventh Vioxx-related case tried in US courts, and the fourth tried in federal courts.

November 22, 2006: A federal judge in New Orleans rejects a bid to have all federal lawsuits against Merck in connection with Vioxx consolidated in a single national class action against the company.

December 13, 2006: In the fifth federal Vioxx trial, a jury in New Orleans returns a verdict in favor of Merck, concluding that the company did not fail to adequately warn a Tennessee man's doctors about risks associated with Vioxx.

December 15, 2006: Marking Merck's fourth state victory, an Alabama jury returns a verdict in favor of Merck, concluding that Vioxx did not cause the plaintiff in the case to suffer a heart attack.

January 18, 2007: A jury in California cannot reach a decision on the third of a series of questions on a verdict form in the consolidated cases of two men who blamed their heart attacks on Vioxx, leading Judge Victoria Chaney of the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County to declare a mistrial.

March 5, 2007: A New Jersey superior court judge upholds a jury verdict for Merck, finding that the company had given adequate warning to physicians of the risks associated with Vioxx.

March 12, 2007: A separate New Jersey jury awards a plaintiff $20 million in the latest Vioxx litigation. During the first phase of the trial, the jury found that Merck had not adequately warned doctors and consumers about the increased risk of heart attack associated with the drug.

March 27, 2007: An Illinois jury sides with Merck in the latest Vioxx litigation, holding that the painkiller was not the cause of the 2003 death of 52-year-old Patty Schwaller.

April 13, 2007: A New Jersey federal judge dismisses a class action brought by investors of Merck, ruling that the suit was filed after the statute of limitations had run. The investors had said that Merck had deliberately concealed information from them about the safety record of its arthritis drug Vioxx.

June 6, 2007: US District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the US Eastern District of Louisiana modifies his 2006 ruling that rejected a $51 million jury award against Merck, offering the plaintiff $600,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

July 31, 2007: The New Jersey Superior Court affirmes a lower court decision that New Jersey is not an appropriate forum for 98 English and Welsh plaintiffs to proceed with personal injury lawsuits against New Jersey-based Merck, rejecting the plaintiffs' assertions that their remedies under UK law will be inadequate.

September 6, 2007: The New Jersey Supreme Court dismisses a class action lawsuit filed against Merck, reversing a lower court's decision to grant nationwide class certification in the case.

September 17, 2007: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg file a joint lawsuit against Merck, alleging that the company misrepresented known dangers associated with Vioxx, causing millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted.

November 9, 2007: Merck says it has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle all pending lawsuits regarding Merck's marketing and distribution of Vioxx.

May 14, 2008: A Texas appeals court overturns a verdict finding Merck liable for the death of a 71-year-old man who died from a heart attack within a month of taking Vioxx.

May 20, 2008: Merck agrees to pay $58 million to settle lawsuits regarding its allegedly deceptive advertising for Vioxx.

May 30, 2008: NJ Appellate Division reduces a jury award in a consolidated Vioxx lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages.

September 10, 2008: The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstates a class-action lawsuit against Merck.

October 2, 2008: Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum files a lawsuit against Merck alleging deceptive marketing in promoting Vioxx.