What defenses are Merck, drug manufacturer, and/or my doctor likely to use in a Vioxx lawsuit?

The main defense that Merck will probably rely on is that the use of Vioxx was not the actual cause of the heart attack or stroke – that the heart attack or stroke was caused by an underlying condition or that it just happened. They may also argue that the health care professional involved did not take any preexisting conditions into account when deciding to prescribe the drug. If the individual who suffered the heart attack or stroke suffered from heart disease, high blood pressure, or any other condition that could proximately lead to a heart attack or stroke, you can expect the defense to bring that out as the actual cause of the heart attack or stroke rather than the use of Vioxx. These facts can, of course, be used against the prescribing doctor.

If the doctor is also a party to the suit, you can expect that the arguments will try to shift all blame to the manufacturer of the drug, stating that Merck advertised the drug in a misleading way that did not properly advise health professionals of the risks associated with its use. The doctor may also show that the patient somehow contributed to the heart attack or stroke by not disclosing full medical history or by not telling the doctor about any warning signs of heart attack or stroke.

If your doctor gave you information that warned you not to use Vioxx due to a preexisting condition but you continued to take the drug, your damages may be reduced. This is called ‘contributory negligence’ and will be used to show that you were given the information you needed to know that continued use of the drug could be dangerous for you, but that you used the drug anyhow and, therefore, you were responsible for causing your medical problems. Depending on the jurisdiction where your case is brought, this can partially affect your damages or it can prevent you from getting any damages whatsoever. Your Vioxx attorney will help you determine how this may affect your case.