Vioxx was developed by Merck & Co. to compete with Celebrex and Bextra (both Pfizer products). Vioxx was a prescription COX-2 selective, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). It was approved by the FDA in May, 1999 for the relief of osteoarthritis symptoms, the managemement of acute pain in adults, and for the treatment of menstrual pain. It was later approved for the relief of rheumatoid arthritis symptoms in adults and children. When taken long term for arthritis pain, Vioxx was supposed to be gentler on the stomach than other NSAID treatments like aspirin, Motrin and Aleve, although many people had a reaction to the drug.

Before Vioxx was approved and sales started in mid-1999, Merck's own drug trial showed that taking Vioxx caused over twice as many of the test subjects to suffer heart attacks and strokes than the subjects taking naproxen (like Aleve, one of the more popular arthritis treatments). But, desperate to have a drug to compete with Celebrex, Merck said it wasn't Vioxx that was causing the increased injuries, but that naproxen was somehow protecting the heart and "preventing" heart attacks. Merck argued that the naproxen skewed the results falsely against Vioxx, even though there was no scientific support for that proposition, then or now.

Several other studies performed after the release of Vioxx in 1999 confirmed the increased risk of heart attack and strokes with Vioxx. For example, a study finished by the FDA analyzed medical records of patients insured by Kaiser Permanente, one of the largest health maintenance organizations in the country. 26,748 patients had taken Vioxx and 40,405 had taken Celebrex between 1999-2001. The study showed there was a 50% higher risk of Vioxx induced heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths than with Celebrex, and the risk tripled when the dose of Vioxx was 25mg. or more.

Merck finally admitted that a study it did showed Vioxx caused an increased risk of cardiovascular events (including primarily strokes and heart attacks). On September 30, 2004, Merck announced a withdrawal of Vioxx from the U.S. and worldwide markets due to safety concerns. In states with a two year statute of limitations (like Nevada), a lawsuit against Merck alleging a cardiovascular injury while taking Vioxx or shortly afterwards, should be filed by September 30, 2006. If you think you have an injury from Vioxx, you should contact an attorney immediately.

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed for persons injured by Vioxx. In Federal court, the cases are being handled by a Federal judge in New Orleans. Some states (such as California and New Jersey, Merck's home state) have also consolidated that state's cases before one judge. In other states, like Nevada, state court Vioxx cases have not been consolidated for trial purposes. White Meany & Wetherall is prosecuting nearly 100 cases, some in Federal Court, some in the California consolidated proceedings, and the majority before individual state court judges in Nevada.

Although these are difficult cases to prosecute and Merck (with a multi-million dollar budget) insists it will fight every one of the 10,000 cases on file, White Meany & Wetherall is committed to do the same thing on behalf of our clients.

We are at the forefront of Vioxx litigation in Nevada, where we have the first scheduled trial against Merck in the state. Our co-counsel in Vioxx cases just won a $51 million verdict against Merck in another Vioxx trial in New Orleans. Our own trial attorneys, along with other attorneys who work with us at no additional fee to our clients, use a team effort to meet Merck head on.

Your ability to recover damages and the amount of your recovery will depend in large part on the strength and reputation of the law firm you select to handle your case.