Angie, your facts continue to be wrong. Merck didn’t know anything that it didn’t tell doctors. The VIGOR results were published and distributed by Merck, including on the label. And there isn’t a “4x” risk. The FDA’s complaint was not about what Merck wasn’t telling doctors, it was that Merck was telling doctors about still other studies that were equally true.

Again, you misunderstand the meaning of a warning letter. The FDA definition of “false and misleading” includes drug companies telling scientific truths that haven’t been officially signed off by the FDA, so a warning letter says nothing other than that the FDA bureaucracy is at work limiting the speech of a pharmaceutical company. If the FDA thought the violation was severe, it would have done more than send out a warning letter. FDA warning letters and overprotectiveness have killed more people than Vioxx ever did by forbidding drug companies to talk about the cardiovascular benefits of aspirin or of statins.

2) Your calculations are completely wrong, not least because (A) the government doesn’t tax compensatory settlement damages; (B) the government doesn’t tax fees and costs you pay your attorney or subrogation amounts; (C) you’re ignoring Schedule A deductions and thus double-taxing yourself. And if your attorney had $17,000 in costs for a case that wasn’t litigated, you’re being ripped off. Talk to another lawyer before embarking on fruitless litigation on the false belief that agreeing to a settlement will cost you money.

On paper the 8% sounds nice that it is deducted from the attorney’s end. Here is the problem. You sign the 33% contract and the attorney donates the 8% back and makes that portion up in expenses. Of course we know all lawyers are honest and they would never drive up the expenses. Punitive Judgements are fully taxable under the IRC,104(a)2). Medicare holds a superlein.

In theory, people that are under SSDI Benifits would need to reimburse Social Security for medical expenses, but this also poses another question.

Since Punitive Damages are treated as income they may also need to pay any benifits back in the year they recived their settlement since there is not a Medical Clause for medical damages in the settlement agreement.

Another issue which relates back to income and taxes. If one falls under the AMT tax they will not be able to deduct andy expenses from Schd. A.

Two people with the same Gross Settlement amounts could end up with different Net Amounts.

Take the $100,000.00 settlement. 33% to the attorney plus 17% in expenses on average. Leaves you with $50,000.00. You fall under the AMT and 28% (-$28,000.00) is deducted for federal taxes of the gross amount. Leaves you with $22,000.00. Let’s do not forget about state taxes. 12% sounds like a good number. (-$12,000.00). Leaves you with a net amount of $10,000.00. Do the same numbers with a $200,000.00 settlement: Leaves you with a net amount of $20,000.00 are $10,000 more for each $100,000.00 above a $100,000.00 settlement. Say my hospital expenses where $50,000.00 in which there was a lien. There goes my net out the window.

If the government comes in and pushes for wages/benifits back since gross income was more than the allotted amount allowed to be earned during the year;

Hello Ted or Mr. Payday Loan.

I wonder if lawyers ever charge their clients for expenses and turn around and file for the same expenses when filing taxes?

A good reason why you do not find one lawyer bringing suit against another lawyer.

Back to Vioxx. Too many unanswered questioins as to the wording of the settlement agreement.

Sign the agreement and there is no backing out,Sorry.

Similarly, subrogation issues are a matter of state law, and would be equally at issue in a trial judgment. I’m not aware of any subrogation laws or tax laws that would leave a client with negative money for taking a settlement, so I fail to understand where the $36,000 loss would come from; if the insurer is coming after you for the payment, they’re coming after you whether or not you settle.

There are many many ethical problems with plaintiffs’ attorneys representing so many clients. But those problems were there from the day the trial lawyers signed you up and none of the ethicists complaining now were complaining then.

Good luck.

If you have medicare or a subrogation clause those parties will need to be reimbursed.

In my case if I sign such an agreement I would end up owing around $36,000.00.

Rico Act:

Merck and these attornys are waiving the $5000.00 check around to lure people into the settlement with promise of more money to follow.

The attorneys that represent the clients have not inform their clients that they may end up with nothing. Lack of Full Disclosure.

What it comes down to is a large group of people (lawyers) trying to extort money w/o informing their clients to obtain large sums of money for lawyers and only the lawyers which may not be in the best interest of the client which is also misconduct and a failure to represent.

So, no, not dollar one from Merck. I speak for myself, and haven’t hesitated to criticize Merck when they’ve merited it.

Tens of thousands of plaintiffs with meritless cases will be getting more money from Merck than me.

1. When faced with a violation, the FDA has discretion for engaging in an enforcement action or issuing a “warning letter” for a “minor violation.” See 21 U.S.C. § 336. This is an unreviewable decision of prosecutorial discretion. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 837-38 (1985). If plaintiffs are allowed to seek civil damages on the basis of a warning letter, which was issued because Merck committed only a minor violation (the FDA is very strict about what pharmaceutical companies can say, sometimes even penalizing them for repeating scientifically-true facts that are published in medical journals), it completely disrupts the entire regulatory structure. “This flexibility is a critical component of the statutory and regulatory framework under which the FDA pursues difficult (and often competing) objectives.” Buckman, 531 U.S. at 349.

2. The letter further demonstrates that there is no failure-to-warn problem: Merck was required to send a “Dear Healthcare Provider” letter (p. 7) and did so in April 2002. Doctors knew everything Merck did about the possibility of pro-thrombotic risk. The claim that Merck hid something is a claim that Merck had perfect foresight that it did not share.

3. The settlement isn’t being forced on anyone. If a plaintiff wants to bring a futile lawsuit against an innocent defendant instead of taking free money, Merck and the settling plaintiffs can do nothing to stop them other than defend itself in court at trial (or, more likely, in pre-trial motions). For the vast majority, and perhaps even all, of the plaintiffs, they are better off with the settlement than without it, however.

4. If anything, Merck is guilty of caring too much about safety, perhaps because of the perverse incentives of the legal system: 80% of orthopedists wish Vioxx was back on the market. COX-2 inhibitors have valuable gastrointestinal properties, and the decline in their use has dramatically and adversely affected GI problems. Meanwhile, it appears that the NSAIDs that are replacing Vioxx have the same CV issues that Vioxx does. Vioxx may well be safer overall than the drugs that replaced it.