Michigan stopped from suing Merck over Vioxx

LANSING (AP) -- A unique Michigan law bars the state from suing drug maker Merck & Co. to recover millions of dollars spent on Vioxx, an arthritis drug pulled from the market because of health risks in 2004, a court said last Friday. In a 2-1 decision, the state appeals court said Merck is protected by a law that grants immunity to companies if a drug has been approved by federal regulators. It's the only one of its kind in the country. The state attorney general's office is trying to recover millions of tax dollars spent on behalf of Medicaid recipients who used Vioxx. The state said the lawsuit is about false Medicaid claims, not product liability, but judges Henry William Saad and David Sawyer disagreed. "A court is not bound by a party's choice of labels. . . . Plaintiffs claim that Merck made deceptive statements about the safety and efficacy of Vioxx, and that they would not have paid all or part of the cost of Vioxx prescribed to Michigan Medicaid beneficiaries had Merck not made the allegedly false and deceptive statements," Saad wrote. The dissenting judge, E. Thomas Fitzgerald, said the state simply wants a refund and is not suing over anyone's physical injury. The decision overturns a ruling by an Ingham County judge. John Sellek, a spokesman for the attorney general, said attorneys were reviewing the decision. Merck said it's pleased. "We have consistently maintained that we acted responsibly and communicated accurate information about the safety of Vioxx to physicians, patients and governmental authorities," Merck spokesman Ronald Rogers said. Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in 2004 after its own research showed the once-blockbuster drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke. The company paid $4.85 billion to settle most of the roughly 50,000 lawsuits alleging Vioxx harmed or killed users. Published: Tue, Mar 22, 2011