The
Montgomery
Law Firm, LLC

Merck faces about 16,000 lawsuits over the cardiovascular risks of its painkiller Vioxx. Since July 2005, Merck has won five verdicts and lost four. Merck has been ordered to pay $348 million in damages, an amount that will drop to $98 million because of state caps on punitive damages. Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in 2004.

Here is a summary of the trials to date:

July 14, 2005: The first Vioxx trial begins in Angleton, Texas, where jurors hear opening arguments on a suit by the widow of Robert Ernst, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. produce manager who died in 2001. Ernst, a personal trainer who ran marathons, had an irregular heartbeat and suffered a fatal heart attack after using Vioxx for eight months, family attorney Mark Lanier argues. Merck says Ernst's arteries were damaged by smoking and he died from an irregular heartbeat, not a heart attack.

Aug. 19, 2005: Jurors order Merck to pay $253 million to the Ernst family, including $24.4 million in actual damages and $229 million in punitive damages. Merck vows to appeal. A state cap on punitive damages will limit the total award to $26 million. The case is Ernst v. Merck, 19961-BH02, District Court of Brazoria County, Texas (Angleton).

Sept. 14, 2005: A jury in Atlantic City, New Jersey, hears opening statements in the trial of a suit brought by Frederick Humeston, 60, an Idaho postal worker and Vietnam War veteran who blamed Vioxx for his heart attack in 2001. Merck disputes Humeston's claim that he took Vioxx for two months and attributed his heart attack to his age, weight, gender, cholesterol, blood pressure and stress.

Nov. 3, 2005: Jurors reject Humeston's claims that Merck failed to warn about the drug's risks and that the company defrauded consumers. The case is Humeston v. Merck & Co., L- 02272-03, Superior Court, New Jersey (Atlantic City).

Nov. 29, 2005: The first federal trial over Vioxx begins in Houston. In opening arguments, the attorney for the family of Richard ``Dicky'' Irvin argues that he died of a heart attack in 2001 after using Vioxx for 23 days. Merck says Irvin, a 53-year- old manager of a seafood distributor in St. Augustine, Florida, had a heart attack because of his weight and clogged arteries. The case, which was supposed to be heard in New Orleans, was moved to Houston because of Hurricane Katrina.

Dec. 12, 2005: U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon declares a mistrial when jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict in the Irvin case. The case is Plunkett vs. Merck & Co., 05-MD-1657, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).

Jan. 25, 2006: Jurors in Rio Grande City, Texas, hear opening arguments on a suit by the family of Leonel Garza, a retired U.S. Army sergeant who died of a heart attack on April 21, 2001. Garza's lawyers claim he took free samples of Vioxx for three weeks. Merck says he had only an eight-day supply. Merck blames his history of heart disease, dating to 1978, for the heart attack.

Feb. 6, 2006: A retrial of the Irvin lawsuit begins in federal court in New Orleans.

Feb. 17, 2006: Jurors rule Merck wasn't to blame for Irvin's heart attack. The panel deliberates three hours and 40 minutes.

March 6, 2006: Jurors in Atlantic City, New Jersey, hear opening arguments on suits by Thomas Cona, 59, and John McDarby, 77, who survived heart attacks. Cona, of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said he took Vioxx for 22 months before his heart attack, a claim disputed by Merck. McDarby, of Park Ridge, New Jersey, is a wheelchair-bound diabetic who took Vioxx for four years before his heart attack in April 2004. Merck blames their heart attacks on their age, coronary artery disease and other ailments, including high blood pressure and cholesterol.

April 5, 2006: Jurors order Merck to pay $4.5 million in compensatory damages to McDarby for his heart attack and nothing to Cona, who was represented by Lanier. The panel finds that Merck failed to warn McDarby and Cona of the drug's risks. Jurors rule Merck also violated New Jersey's consumer fraud law, awarding $3,968 to McDarby, an amount tripled to $11,905 under the law. It awards $45 to Cona, tripled to $115. The consumer fraud finding allows the men's lawyers to seek legal fees and expenses. Merck opposes their request for $5.4 million.

April 11, 2006: McDarby wins $9 million in punitive damages, raising his total award to $13.5 million. Merck says it will appeal. The cases are McDarby v. Merck & Co., L-1296-05, and Cona v. Merck & Co., L-3553-05, Superior Court, New Jersey (Atlantic City).

April 21, 2006: Jurors in Texas award $32 million to the family of Garza, including $25 million in punitive damages. State law caps the punitive damages at $750,000. Merck vowed to appeal. The case is Garza v. Evans, DC-03-84, 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas (Rio Grande City).

June 5, 2006: Jurors in Atlantic City hear opening arguments in the case of Elaine Doherty, a 68-year-old grandmother who survived a heart attack in January 2004 after taking Vioxx for more than two years. Merck blames her age, obesity, blood pressure, cholesterol and clogged arteries.

June 27, 2006: A state jury in Los Angeles hears opening arguments in the lawsuit of Stewart Grossberg, 71, a retired construction manager who claims he took more than 200 Vioxx pills before his heart attack in September 2001. Merck blames his age, family history, stress and high cholesterol.

July 13, 2006: Merck wins the Doherty trial when jurors rule Vioxx wasn't a cause of her heart attack. The panel rules Merck didn't warn Doherty herself of the drug's risks. Previous juries considered only whether Merck failed to warn a patient's doctor. The case is Doherty v. Merck & Co., L-638-05, Superior Court, New Jersey (Atlantic City).

July 31, 2006: Federal jurors in New Orleans hear opening arguments about a lawsuit over the 2002 heart attack of retired FBI agent Gerald Barnett, 62. Barnett, a South Carolina resident, claims he took Vioxx for more than four years. Merck blames his coronary artery disease and a family history of heart ailments. The case is Barnett v. Merck, 06-485, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).

Aug. 2, 2006: Merck wins the Grossberg trial when jurors in Los Angeles rule the company wasn't liable for his heart attack and the company wasn't negligent. The case is Vioxx Cases, JCCP4247, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California (Los Angeles).

Aug. 17, 2006: Barnett wins $50 million in compensatory damages after jurors rule that Vioxx was a cause of his heart attack, and Merck was negligently failed to give adequate warning to his treating physicians. The jury awarded Barnett $1M in punitive damages.

Free Vioxx^TM Case Evaluation

Please fill out the form below to have your case evaluated.

Please provide as much information as possible about your case. If you do not provide adequate case information, including injuries or damages sustained it may take us longer to process your inquiry.

*Items are required.
There is no charge for this evaluation.

Contact Information:

*Title: *First Name: MI: *Last Name: -- Mr. Mrs. Ms. Miss Mr. & Mrs. Dr.   *E-mail Address: Home Phone: - - Mobile Phone: - - Work Phone: - - ext.   *Provide at least 1 phone number. *Street Address: Apt/Suite: *City: *State/Zip: /   What is the best way to reach you? Please provide the best place, time and method for contacting you.   Additional Contact Information: Use this area to add country codes, foreign addresses, special instructions, etc.

Injured Person Information:

Date of Birth: mm 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 dd 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 yyyy 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 1916 1915 1914 1913 1912 1911 1910 1909 1908 1907 1906 1905 1904 1903 1902 1901 1900 Whom are you inquiring on behalf of? Minor Other Self If you are NOT inquiring on your own behalf, what is your relationship? Is the person deceased? Yes No If deceased, the cause of death as stated on the death certificate:  Date of Death: mm 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 dd 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 yyyy 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 1916 1915 1914 1913 1912 1911 1910 1909 1908 1907 1906 1905 1904 1903 1902 1901 1900 Was there an autopsy performed? Yes  No  n/a Did you take VioxxTM within one year of your injury? Yes  No

Case Information:

During what period of time was VioxxTM prescribed? Start End Why was VioxxTM prescribed? What dosage of VioxxTM were you prescribed daily? (i.e. 25mg, 50mg, 75mg) List names/addresses of any doctors who prescribed VioxxTM: Did effects from VioxxTM include: Stevens Johnson Syndrome Yes No Heart Attack Yes No Stroke Yes No Deep Vein Thrombosis Yes No Blood Clots Yes No Pulmonary Embolism Yes No Death Yes No Other medical problems since VioxxTM usage: Date medical problem(s) first occurred: Other Information:

Disclaimers:

Yes No - I agree that this matter may be referred to an attorney in my area who may contact me. Yes No - I agree that by submitting this question, I will not be charged for the initial response. I understand that I am forming only a semi-confidential relationship. Yes - I agree that the above does not constitute a request for legal advice and that I am not forming an attorney client relationship by submitting this question. I understand that I may only retain an attorney by entering into a fee agreement, and that I am not hereby entering into a fee agreement. I agree that the information that I will receive in response to the above question is general information and I will not be charged for the response to this e-mail question. I further understand that the law for each state may vary, and therefore, I will not rely upon this information as legal advice. Since this matter may require advice regarding my home state, I agree that local counsel may be contacted for referral of this matter. By Clicking the appropriate box below, I agree to:

For purposes of security, please type the letters from above in the space provided.