QUESTIONS REGARDING THE VIOXX SETTLEMENT

In reading all the material that I can find on the Vioxx settlement and the ongoing litigation many questions come up. Here are some of the most important ones that I would like to ask my lawyer, if I could ever speak to him.

1. Do I have any recourse if I do not agree to the settlement amount after signing this release?
2. Do you have an estimate of what the settlement amount should be?
3. What is the reason for your “recommendation” to accept and sign this Release?
4. Is this Release legal? In other words, can they just refuse to provide me with any settlement and then claim that I cannot go after them because I signed this release?
5. What right does Merck have to “pay all third parties” or demand that all third parties are paid prior to my receipt of any settlement funds?
6. What third parties does this refer to in the Release?
7. Will the third parties be notified of my settlement and/or their back-pay of any claims that they took care of even if they never filed a lien?
8. Have you (Lanier) received any liens regarding my case?
9. If there is a settlement offered to me, how would it be paid? Structured settlement payments or lump sum?
10. What if I don’t sign the Release?
11. Will you/your firm still represent me?
12. Have you (yourself) even evaluated my case or had an “expert” doctor look at my case to see if I “qualify” or am “eligible” for this “global settlement”?
13. How do I know that your information is not confused or not represented incorrectly?

I think these are all questions that every plaintiff in this case should be asking.

For more information please go to VPEG

Questions For My Attorney

I just found a place where my attorney (allegedly) made some statements on December 27, 2007 at 7:39 pm. This is a copy of his “comment” on a blog at http://frommedskool.com.

Mark Lanier said:

“Please be more precise in your practice of medicine than you are in your blogging! First off, I (Mark Lanier) was not the “defense attorney.” I was the “Plaintiffs’ attorney.” Second, my “favorite piece of evidence” you cite (the Gilmartin questioning) was not played at trial. Third, there was a huge amount of info Merck had that it never gave the FDA, there were smoking gun memos and emails, and there was huge harassment of the medical community done by Merck. For example, Merck did a full meta-analysis of placebo trial that showed a statistically significant increase in heart attacks, but Merck excised that from the report given the FDA. Even Merck’s head admitted they should have given the analysis to the FDA.”

Here it is less than one month later, in fact the letter that I received was dated January 9, 2008 “recommending” that I enroll in the settlement program put together by Merck and a “Plaintiffs Steering Committee”. (As you will note, PSC’s middle name…Steer-ing…sounds like bull to me)

As any person who has worked in the legal field (as I have) knows, you do not sign a "Release of Liability" without some type of monetary discussion and agreement of the terms. Merck and my attorney wants me (as well as many others) to sign a Release prior to agreeing on a monetary amount. In fact, they want this "Release" signed with "No Guarantee" of even being found "eligible" for a settlement.

This raises some questions in my mind, those questions are:
(1) What is the “Gilmartin questioning” and where can I get a copy of such “evidence”?
(2) Since you (Mr. Lanier) are aware of such evidence why are you now wanting to “recommend” to all of your Vioxx clients to take this settlement?
(3) Along with your “recommendation”, is the threat that if I don’t take the settlement you will no longer represent me, supposed to frighten me?

I am not the only plaintiff feeling this way and if you are of the same mind, or even if you don’t feel the same, I invite you to join a group of plaintiffs currently refusing to sign this “Release Of All Claims” that we all recently received. Just go to the Vioxx Plaintiffs Educational Group (VPEG)to learn more.

If you are an attorney looking to represent us "hold outs" when (and if) our current attorneys "withdraw" or "disengage" us go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mercksettlementlaw (VPAG)

BETRAYED 2

My feelings of betrayal increased when I found that there was a “Master Settlement” agreement between Merck and plaintiffs' attorneys which states:

Section 1.2.8.1 (pages 4 and 5)
1.2.8.1 By submitting an Enrollment Form, the Enrolling Counsel affirms that he has recommended, or (if such Enrollment Form is submitted prior to February 28, 2008) will recommend by no later than the earlier date of the date of service of the Certification of Final Enrollment and February 28, 2008, to 100% of the Eligible Claimants represented by the Enrolling Counsel that such Eligible Claimants enroll in the Program.

1.2.8.2 If any such Eligible Claimant disregards such recommendation, or for any other reason fails (or has failed) to submit a non-deficient and non-defective Enrollment Form on or before the earlier of the date of service of the Certification of Final Enrollment and June 30, 2008, such Enrolling Counsel shall, on or before the earlier of June 30, 2008 and the 30th day after the date of service of the Certification of Final Enrollment (or, if such Enrolling Counsel first becomes an Enrolling Counsel after June 30, 2008, shall have, by the date such Enrolling Counsel so first became an Enrolling Counsel), to the extent permitted by the equivalents to Rules 1.16 and 5.6 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct in the relevant jurisdiction(s), (I) take (or have taken, as the case may be) all necessary steps to disengage and withdraw from the representation of such Eligible Claimant and to forego any Interest in such Eligible Claimant and (ii) cause (or have caused, as the case may be) each other Enrolling Counsel, and each other counsel with an Interest in any Enrolled Program Claimant, which has an Interest in such Eligible Claimant to do the same.


Now my feelings of betrayal come from my interpretation of the above "Master Settlement" (this is an agreement between Merck and Plaintiff's Attorneys) that says if I don't agree to sign the "Settlement/Release" that was sent to me, my attorney (Mark Lanier of Lanier Law Firm) has to send me packing from his firm to scrounge around and find new counsel to represent me.

Besides trying to destroy the attorney-client relationship I wonder what Merck’s real motives are. Could it be that they are trying to escape their liability to all the third party claimants such as medicare, medicaid, insurance companies, etc.?

For more information please go to Plaintiffs Group

BETRAYED

I recently received my "settlement" pack and geez...the terms they state in this pack have so angered me. I feel as though I am experiencing betrayal from my attorney and so much more. It doesn’t matter how hard I try not to be upset/angry at this settlement “offer”, I can’t seem to get past it yet. Maybe because the more I investigate the whole Vioxx Litigation situation, the more I believe that Merck has paid off so many. I also believe that the plaintiffs’ attorneys are only looking out for themselves in the most selfish way…greed. I understand (believe me) that there are always people taking advantage of situations such as this, for example the plaintiff who took Vioxx for 2 weeks and expected to get millions. It seems that plaintiffs’ attorneys and Merck are not looking at those of us who have legitimate cases, on an individual case basis.
I am not so stupid as to think Merck does not want to save money. Isn’t that the American way? But they did put out a drug that has been proven to increase the risk of heart attack as well as strokes. Many of us across this country (apparently a few other countries, as well) trusted them and our doctors when we took this drug. If the doctors had been told of this increased risk of cardiovascular events (as in my case), would they have prescribed Vioxx to the thousands of us that took it??? I think NOT!!

For more information please go to Plaintiffs Group