Vioxx statute of limitations

Donald Saiontz

By Donald Saiontz
Posted October 10, 2006


In many states, the statute of limitations will bar the filing of additional Vioxx lawsuits since it has now been two years since the pain killer was withdrawn from the market. The Wall Street Journal reported that over the past few weeks, the number of lawsuits currently pending against Merck has jumped by 55%. However, claims for all individuals injured may not be barred by the Vioxx statute of limitations, since time may still be available in some states to pursue a lawsuit for injuries sustained.

It has been estimated that 22,000 Vioxx lawsuits are currently pending. Over 14,000 of those lawsuits are filed in New Jersey state court. New Jersey is the home state for Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, and the state has a two year statute of limitations.

Although many states have a two year statute of limitations, time may still be available for individuals injured as a result of Vioxx, depending on the circumstances of their case.

7 Comments • Add Your Comments

  • Mally O'brien says:

    Just wondering……I have a freind who has a case. She wants to know if you think there might eventually be a global settelment, as realistically, no one will ever be around to get any money by the time each case goes to trial.

    Posted on July 5, 2007 at 10:43 am

  • Austin Kirk says:

    Mary, At this time Merck is continuing to take the stance that they are going to litigate every case. They have refused to enter any discussions of settlement, but most believe that once a certain number of trials have been completed, they will have to start talking settlement. If one case goes to trial every day (including weekends and holidays), it would take 60 to 70 years to litigate every case. Realistically, the company can not continue to litigate every claim, especially when each loss so far has resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict.

    Posted on July 5, 2007 at 9:15 pm

  • zaheda says:

    what happens to those of us outside the USA who used vioxx and experienced cardio or stroke problems? do we have recourse to sue in america or our own country?

    Posted on September 15, 2009 at 8:26 am

  • Martin says:

    I have suffered a heart attack and heart arythmia in 2003 after taking vioxx. I was told that if a doctor couldn’t or wouldn’t verify that vioxx played a roll then I couldn’t file a claim. I recently found out I was misinformed and want to know if I can still file a claim 15 years later.

    Posted on September 29, 2018 at 2:12 am

  • patricia says:

    Hello, I have been a user of Vioxx for joint paint and remember taking it in 2001 and maybe longer. I went to a free Health check and my BP was 160/100. I never had high BP before. A nurse friend told me to get off that stuff meaning Vioxx, and I did. However, my Family Doc poo-poo the idea that Vioxx was a trouble maker. Later the drug was pulled from the market, I wonder if she made the connection. Some how I missed the lawsuit time period and now it is too late. Thanks for listening

    Posted on April 11, 2020 at 4:10 pm

  • Trisha says:

    My mom died in Nov of 2000. She was taking Vioxx. I was unaware of lawsuits until recently. Her body was cremated. Is it too late?

    Posted on September 1, 2021 at 12:48 pm

  • James says:

    My wife suffered 3 heart attacks as well as unusual skin lesions while taking Vioxx in 2003. Her doctor backed off of saying Vioxx was responsible. All of these years later she is now aware that the Doctor was incorrect and that she may have missed a settlement from the Vioxx manufacturer.
    Is it too late ?

    Posted on December 2, 2021 at 5:51 pm

Add Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide contact information below and additional private comments if you want an attorney to contact you to review a potential case.

    The information below will not be published to this page.

  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.