|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
![]() |
Texas, Merck Spar Over Vioxx Trial Site |
|||||
|
August 8, 2005
“This is a major disappointment to the taxpayers of Texas, who deserve to be reimbursed for the company’s wrongful scheme to defraud Medicaid. I urge Merck to stop evading their obligations. A Texas jury deserves to hear evidence of fraud in a Texas district court.” Abbott in turn filed a request for remand in court on the heels of Merck’s filing, telling U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel that no federal issue exists to warrant such a venue change. The state’s suit contends the company failed to tell physicians and consumers that the painkilling prescription drug Vioxx might cause cardiovascular problems. The company also pushed to place Vioxx on the state’s Medicaid list for approved medicines, knowing this danger existed. The attorney general alleges Merck aggressively marketed the drug to the medical community, and in doing so, willfully misrepresented its own studies and the concerns of physicians who suggested the drug might sharply increase the risk of heart problems. The Texas Medicaid program reimbursed pharmacists $56 million for Vioxx prescriptions they filled for patients over a five-year period. Abbott is invoking a provision in state law that allows for that amount to be automatically tripled to $168 million, which Merck would have to pay to the state of Texas for acts of fraud. Merck finally conceded the health concerns and voluntarily withdrew the product in September 2004, after aggressively marketing the drug since 1999. The Texas lawsuit claims Merck’s costly promotional campaign aimed to convince consumers the drug was not only safe, but that they should demand it from their health care professionals for pain. The company also allegedly tried to intimidate or threaten physicians and researchers who questioned the safety of Vioxx. The company even routinely misrepresented or concealed published evidence, including its own, showing possible harmful effects of the drug, the suit charges. Report Your Experience
|
|
||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|