Tim Derk sues the makers of Vioxx

Ex-Coyote sues pain drug's maker
Web Posted: 06/09/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Guillermo Contreras and Richard A. Marini
Express-News Staff Writers

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b...2f6282ccb.html

He came back even after a broken nose, separated shoulder, cracked ribs, bruised kidney and torn tendons.

But, according to a lawsuit, a little beige pill permanently sidelined the man who donned a furry costume and entertained throngs of San Antonio Spurs faithful.

Tim Derk, who was the Spurs Coyote for 21 years, is suing Merck & Co., the maker of Vioxx, claiming the prescription drug caused a stroke he suffered in February 2004 that forced him out of the Coyote costume for good.

The suit — filed May 25 in state court in San Antonio — alleges the New Jersey-based company knew Vioxx doubled the chance for heart attacks and strokes if used long-term, but hid the information so it could keep selling the pain reliever. The drug often is prescribed for arthritis and acute pain.

In an e-mailed statement, the drug maker vowed to "vigorously defend" itself against the claims.

Derk said Wednesday that he had been taking Vioxx daily for more than two years as an anti-inflammatory pain reliever before it was pulled from the market last year. He said his doctors and lawyers told him Vioxx was at the root of his career-ending stroke.

"I am not doing this (suing) because I am angry at anyone," Derk said Wednesday. "However, this stroke has devastated me, my family and my life, and it never should have happened. ... I want to make sure that what happened to me doesn't happen to anyone else."

Derk's attorneys, Mikal Watts and Brian Berryman of the Watts Law Firm in Corpus Christi, said in the lawsuit that Merck engaged in practices that thwarted any mention of Vioxx's risks, or downplayed them to get the drug on the market.

"Merck misled both the medical community and the public at large, including plaintiffs, by making false representations about the safety of Vioxx," the lawsuit alleged. "Merck concealed, downplayed, understated and/or disregarded their knowledge of the serious and permanent side effects associated with the use of Vioxx, despite available information that Vioxx was likely to cause fatal side effects to users."

The suit contains claims of negligence, product liability, fraud, failure to disclose and breach of warranty. The suit, filed by Derk and his wife, Colleen, seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In its statement, the drug company said it believes it has "strong and meritorious defenses" to the allegations.

"Merck acted responsibly every step of the way — from researching the drug prior to approval to monitoring the drug while it was on the market, and to voluntarily withdrawing the drug when it did," the statement read. "Merck based its decisions on the data from well-controlled clinical trials and acted in the best interest of patients."

Derk's stroke temporarily paralyzed his right side. He had to relearn basic skills such as holding objects in his right hand, picking up dropped keys and walking.

"When I had the stroke, I was surprised and the No. 1 thought was: 'Why the heck did this happen?'" Derk said. "While I was paralyzed, I wondered what I could have done to avoid this from happening."

Today, the 47-year-old said he has recovered some of his ability, but not the physically challenging moves that made him a crowd favorite. He now dedicates himself to his job as manager of mascot development for Spurs Sports & Entertainment.

"I can fool the average Joe into thinking nothing's wrong," Derk said. "I can have a perfectly fine conversation, but I'm no longer able to do many of the athletic, physical things I could do before. That's why we filed this lawsuit."

Derk joins thousands across the country who have sued Merck over complications from Vioxx. Many suits are being consolidated into a multidistrict litigation handled by a federal judge in New Orleans.

Cases in state court, in all likelihood, will be consolidated at the state level, Berryman said. Watts said Derk's case should remain in state court in Texas.

Vioxx was launched in the United States in 1999 and has been marketed in more than 80 countries, according to a company news release. Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug on Sept. 20, 2004, after its own studies confirmed Vioxx's risks. But that was too late for Derk, his lawyers said.

"I wish that I could be the Spurs Coyote, right now, during this championship run, but because of Vioxx, I'm sitting on the sidelines," Derk said.

Quote:

---

"I wish that I could be the Spurs Coyote, right now, during this championship run, but because of Vioxx, I'm sitting on the sidelines," Derk said

---

no comment.

I sure hope he wins...

Everyone must miss him.

The new coyote just isn't the same...although he does get ejected from games. :spin

I'm glad he Is suing those jerks. My husband's Uncle also suffered a stroke last year while taking Vioxx. To this day he hasn't fully recovered. :depressed

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories daily for two years?

My mom took Vioxxx for a long time before her stroke, too. :(

How is she SW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flea

How is she SW?

---

She wasn't as lucky as Derk, she died from it. :(

OMG SW, I am so sorry.

I wish Tim The best. He brought BIG TIME SPIRIT TO THE GAME. You saw the sliver and black blood rage through that Coyote. He was very physical and I believe that the anti- inflammatory is for pain in the joints(knees, elbows, wrists, neck). Can you imagine how he flet everynight after every home game. He was pretty fatigued I'm guessing. That's why you we don't have the same Coyote he or she is not a physical. I Love that Coyote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cupcakes

I'm glad he Is suing those jerks. My husband's Uncle also suffered a stroke last year while taking Vioxx. To this day he hasn't fully recovered. :depressed

---

Jerks?

I think not.

You see, I used to make that product. I'm "one of those jerks."

People don't seem to realize that Merck (and I'm no longer an employee of that organization) is one of the most ethical of all the major drug companies. There is a mantra at that company that is posted prominently in all facilities. That mantra is "We never try to forget that medicine is for the people," said George Merck, son of Merck's founder. "It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear."

That mantra is an influence in every facet of how that company runs its business. Errors were made in the Vioxx launch, that's clear.

But to say that they were intentional or covered up to deliberately mislead the public is simply feeding on the rhetoric of greedy ambulance chasing lawyers. I know one of the women who was a lead scientist on the development of Vioxx. I can tell you that hurting people was the last thing that Cheryl wanted to do...and that people were hurt will haunt her for the rest of her life.

You'll (please) note that Merck quickly pulled Vioxx, while Pfizer continues to see its equally dangerous COX-II NSAID with reckless abandon. Go through the FDA CDER FOI page and look at the industry warning letters. You'll see many from Pfizer for misleading ads and poor GMP compliance. You'll see very little on Merck.

Merck is a great company and they do not brag on or make ads about the many good deeds they do. How many people have heard about river blindness? Several years ago, a Merck scientist found that rural Africans were suffering from a parasite that caused blindness. He worked with his company (Merck) to find a cure. The company then began to donate -- that is, give away for FREE -- a drug therapy. Once Merck realized that the doctor infrastructure was not in place in Africa for distribution of this drug, Merck began to fund doctors to go to Africa to distribute the product.

But they're not running commercials about it.

Why?

Because it's the right thing to do -- and medicine is, after all, "for the people - not for the profits."

Carter Center on Merck and river blindness

we're ALL Guinea pigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minusplus

we're ALL Guinea pigs.

---

To some extent, you're right. Drugs -- if this is something you already know, I apologize -- have a relatively short patent life.

Imagine that you're General Motors. You have an idea for a great new product called a "Corvette." It's an awesome car. It's fast, attractive and you know it's going to be a classic. It's a high-end, high-volume, high-profit car that will help fund development of the hydrogen fuel cell engine that may eliminate US dependance on foreign oil. You quickly patent the idea of the car and go into development on it.

The clock is already ticking on your patent.

You spend several years finalizing the car. You submit the car idea to the NTSB for approval (a little editorial license here). This takes about a year for review.

The clock keeps ticking.

You get approval and begin to sell the car.

A few years go by...and then your patent expires.

Ford Motor Company, Honda and even Kia(!) now come out with their "generic" clones of your car. They can even call it a "Corvette." Profits on this vehicle quickly dry up.

That's the life of a drug. You have a finite amount of time to sell before you lose patent protection. Those patented blockbusters are what drives your ability to research AIDS, cancer and diabetes indications.

This drives companies to push drugs to the market - and that push is even more intensive when it is an innovator drug for a major indication (such as cancer or AIDS).

snif snif. "poor", "little" drug companies.

The pharmaceuticals group of the F500 has the highest average annual profits vs any other F500 grouping, something like 17% annually. They spend much more on drug-pushing and politician-buying than they do on drug-to-market budgets.

snif snif. Poor little Saint Merck GMAFB

Quote:

---

We never try to forget that medicine is for the people," said George Merck, son of Merck's founder. "It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear."

---

Dude lay off the coolaid... Merk made 6 billion dollars last year. 1/3 of their money goes to bribing doctors with golf and fake 'conferences'. Now they stack the FDA with scientist on the payroll... Who do you think is lobbing congress so you can't buy drugs in Canada? It's borderline criminal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spvrs

Dude lay off the coolaid... Merk made 6 billion dollars last year. 1/3 of their money goes to bribing doctors with golf and fake 'conferences'. Now they stack the FDA with scientist on the payroll... Who do you think is lobbing congress so you can't buy drugs in Canada? It's borderline criminal

---

No, the only "coolaid" (sic) that's being consumed is the stuff you're being fed by Ralph Nader.

Are profits a bad thing?

Only if you're a socialist.

Merck employs tens of thousands of people, donates millions to charity and pays huge amounts of taxes. They also produce and develop drugs that save millions of lives.

But, let's close them down, eh?

After all, profits are a bad thing.

your the one that came up with this corn ball:

Quote:

---

"It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear."

---

these guys basically pay off doctors and stack the FDA with 'friendly' scientist, they also make trumped up minor tweaks and fight the system so their drugs dont' come off patent. Profits are fine, they are great.
Don't try to make a scarecrow agrument Capitalism vs. Socialism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GopherSA

You'll (please) note that Merck quickly pulled Vioxx, while Pfizer continues to see its equally dangerous COX-II NSAID with reckless abandon. Go through the FDA CDER FOI page and look at the industry warning letters. You'll see many from Pfizer for misleading ads and poor GMP compliance. You'll see very little on Merck.

---

The saddest part of the whole thing is as far as I'm concerned....was that Vioxx was the only thing, after trying so many other things for years and years...that made her pain-free. As soon as it was pulled she went right back to basically hurting anytime she moved.

We weren't interested at all in joining any class actions suits, because we don't even know if it was Vioxx related...there were other health issues that could have been equally responsible.

I've been taking Celebrex daily for over 3 years. It is the same class of drug that Vioxx and Bextra are so it worries me to a certain degree. However, I have arthritis in my spine and my quality of life would be seriously degraded if I stopped taking it. Nothing else alleviates the pain. I can live a normal life with it and play sports and everything, but without it I would be a mess.

Quote:

---

No, the only "coolaid" (sic) that's being consumed is the stuff you're being fed by Ralph Nader.

Are profits a bad thing?

Only if you're a socialist.

Merck employs tens of thousands of people, donates millions to charity and pays huge amounts of taxes. They also produce and develop drugs that save millions of lives.

But, let's close them down, eh?

After all, profits are a bad thing

---

Welcome to the new america.


Where it is now a crime to be successfull, rich, or even do well.

TAX EM!!

SHUT EM DOWN!!!!


we are becoming russia more and more every day.

great argument TPark!!!

We need more paid off doctors! We need higher health care cost!!

Yes, heaven forbid that a company make money while helping people. Both my grandfather and my daughter were literally saved by drugs I made while working at Merck.

Yes, I was well compensated for working there. Employing talented people costs money. Compliance with regulatory requirements costs money (and takes several people).

Leave it up to the Nader disciples and we'd never have new drugs in this country.

I find it so ironic that the people who decry drug costs are often the ones also demanding new cures every few months.

I'm glad Tim Derk is suing. He can never regain what he lost.
And he was informened by his doctors that the Vioxx WAS the casue of his stroke.
So he;s got grounds.

good for him.

OK - good for Tim Derk.

...and how much is his attorney getting in this?

YES let's make this an argument about Tort Reform. Then we can talk about the American Dream and profits.. next let's move to Freedom of Speech for the phony 'conferences' ...

Dude you're probably make 300k selling Drugs (although not for Merc..) GOOD FOR YOU. I've got no problem with that. BUT, let's not act like that there isn't something VERY wrong with the drug business now...

There are bound to be complications when taking drugs for such a long period of time. It is something that everyone knows while taking them. You'd be a fool to believe that the drugs wouldn't have any lasting effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spvrs

YES let's make this an argument about Tort Reform. Then we can talk about the American Dream and profits.. next let's move to Freedom of Speech for the phony 'conferences' ...

Dude you're probably make 300k selling Drugs (although not for Merc..) GOOD FOR YOU. I've got no problem with that. BUT, let's not act like that there isn't something VERY wrong with the drug business now...

---

Oh, please.

That's the tired class warfare rhetoric of a Howard Dean follower.

I don't sell pharmaceuticals. I don't make $300k (I wish!) and most sales reps pull around $40-$60k per year.

Yes, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IN THE DRUG INDUSTRY.

But, don't go off placing the Mercks of the world into the same sleaze category that I'd happily place several other companies into.

I don't get why he is suing. Didn't his Physician tell him the side effects? If not, he should be suing his Physician or learning how to read.

You take a risk putting anything into your body....and a fool to think that taking anything long term would have no adverse affect on you.

That wouldn't be what you'd sue for. You'd sue if the maker knew there were risks and didn't mention them. These drugs are marketed for people with chronic pain... that means you use it all the time.

If people wanted to get more information regarding what they are putting into their bodies, especially for long term use they should not only rely on their Doctor's word or advice. Most Doctors don't even spend enough time with their patients. Sometimes you just need to self-educate.

he'd be suing because the information was nowhere to be found or misrepresented. When someone has been given the right to sell to the public that's the deal.

This is basically the contract -- you get boat loads of money with exclusive rights for 7 years but you have to test it and provide the information

Tim Derk must have been taking more than 400mg on daily basis. Vioxx and Bextra were found to really significantly increase the chance of heart attack or stroke if you are taking a larger amount than 400/day.

The fact is, all of these COX-IIs are dangerous when taken chronically and in large amounts pose a significant risk of causing stroke or heart attack (including Aleve).

Tlong, I work in Pharmaceutical Benefit Management and I think it's only a matter of time before Celebrex is pulled as well. I think the pharmaceutical companies are going to have to go back to the drawing board with their COX-II products and see if can tweak the formula to accomplish the pain relief these drugs have brought many people, without the side effects that have devastated many families.

Being the Coyote must make a guy really, really sore.

I wonder if he ever won his lawsuit?

I heard Merck settled a lot of suits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories daily for two years?

---

From what I understand Vioxxx was advertised as the first anti-inflammatory that could be taken without long term health risks. It was the whole point of Vioxxx that it could be taken regularly.

:lol this is a necro post. NVM.

Is he the Coyote who got tossed out of the game?

No this is an old post from 2005...Its about the coyote that was replaced.

And if he received a settlement we likely will never hear about it. They usually have pretty strict non disclosure terms as part of any settlement.

Most older people like my parents do take pain relievers everyday. Its no slight to someones character taking prescription pain relievers everyday like Derk did with his type of career as a mascot.

Hopefully he wins.

COX-2 specific inhibitors should work well in theory, but all of them cause some serious side effects. Just 5-10 years ago, they were all the rage.

Derk has a long road legally, I'm sure Merck has top notch legal reps to cover their asses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories daily for two years?

---

If his doctors had him on it then he has no reason to stop taking it. It must have been doing some kind of good having it over that long of a period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories daily for two years?

---

that mascot outfit is tough

i know alot of mascot peeps and i cannot be in there for 10 minutes.

Its tough work and bad on your back at times

Get well Tim

I love how the Pharmaceutical Pimp in this thread is more than happy to apologize for that industry making money, but then goes to the "greedy lawyers" card. Ironic, strategic...who does america hate more than greedy medical companies?

The lawyers that make big profits from those torts are taking a risk, in that they are putting hours and hours of work into a suit that may turn out nothing. Working for commission means sometimes they don't get paid, so the higher paying suits that do pay for the ones that lose. Now, I for one think making millions for a settlement does not make sense, but if we are going to point fingers at "greedy" lawyers while backing medical companies that make a higher profit margin than any other f500 company...wft?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories [B]daily[/B] for two years?

---

A wide variety of aliments are treated with a regular anti-inflammatory regimen. Taking these meds isn't limited to treating the everyday aches and pains that people normally assume them to be used for (ie musculoskeletal pain, joint pain, etc.)

Could be that he was suffering from Asthma, IBD or even psoriasis......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatita

There are bound to be complications when taking drugs for such a long period of time. It is something that everyone knows while taking them. You'd be a fool to believe that the drugs wouldn't have any lasting effects.

---

Which is why, when you pick up a scrip, you are told all the known side effects, and dangers. How many people actually read these things?

But without them (the drugs), many people would lead tortured existences. So do you want to be pain free or live in misery? My bet is on the pain free side.

About all you can do is have good genes, and never get sick. Otherwise you can take a pill to possibly aid you or maybe even kill you. If you want to be able to live a normal life, you take the pill. If you would rather suffer daily, you don't.

Doctors may prescribe them, but no one puts a gun to your head and makes you take them.

There are risks in every drug. You need a good relationship with your doctor and your pharmicist so you can make the best decision for you. Chronic pain is hard to live with, a lot of people choose the meds even though they know the side effects and risks.

I saw him last night and he looks very tired :depressed

I still can't believe how he used to be our mascot for many years...

sorry to hear about the mascot

even more sorry to read the socialist esq responses in this old thread.

- Mars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories daily for two years?

---

That was the normal recommendation for many using vioxx and celebrex just a few years ago. The patients were told to stay on it, for 6 months for 2 years in a lot of cases. This was before the link of Vioxx to cariovascular problems, however.

In fact, before my father had knee surgery, the insurance company insisted that he get a Rx for Vioxx for 6 months. He went to the doc, got the scrip, but never took Vioxx. He had the knee surgery 6 months later and it was covered, had he not gotten the Rx, he was told that the insurance co. would have denied his claim.

My uncle was not so fortunate. He was on Vioxx for 2.5 years. The only reason he is alive is because the blood clot he formed was 12 inches long and in his right lung. He didn't have a stroke for the same reason. He has now had serious problems with arrythmia, but is actually doing better.

BFTD thread...wow...<cough cough>...it's kinda dusty in here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

I love how the Pharmaceutical Pimp in this thread is more than happy to apologize for that industry making money, but then goes to the "greedy lawyers" card.

---

No kidding.

And Merck is just as much a bunch of assholes as any of the rest of us are, silly American rambling about "socialism" aside - and believe me, we're all assholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories daily for two years?

---

I've taken Celebrex daily for over 5 years. It's the only thing that works for osteo-arthritis in my experience.

Tlong--

Take more.

Lots more.

Lots lots more...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursWoman

My mom took Vioxxx for a long time before her stroke, too. :(

---

Ditto. She took if for about a year or so for her arthritis. Tehen it got pulled from teh market. She then developed heart problems along with the stoke she had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GopherSA

Jerks?

I think not.

You see, I used to make that product. I'm "one of those jerks."

People don't seem to realize that Merck (and I'm no longer an employee of that organization) is one of the most ethical of all the major drug companies. There is a mantra at that company that is posted prominently in all facilities. That mantra is "We never try to forget that medicine is for the people," said George Merck, son of Merck's founder. "It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear."

That mantra is an influence in every facet of how that company runs its business. Errors were made in the Vioxx launch, that's clear.

But to say that they were intentional or covered up to deliberately mislead the public is simply feeding on the rhetoric of greedy ambulance chasing lawyers. I know one of the women who was a lead scientist on the development of Vioxx. I can tell you that hurting people was the last thing that Cheryl wanted to do...and that people were hurt will haunt her for the rest of her life.

You'll (please) note that Merck quickly pulled Vioxx, while Pfizer continues to see its equally dangerous COX-II NSAID with reckless abandon. Go through the FDA CDER FOI page and look at the industry warning letters. You'll see many from Pfizer for misleading ads and poor GMP compliance. You'll see very little on Merck.

Merck is a great company and they do not brag on or make ads about the many good deeds they do. How many people have heard about river blindness? Several years ago, a Merck scientist found that rural Africans were suffering from a parasite that caused blindness. He worked with his company (Merck) to find a cure. The company then began to donate -- that is, give away for FREE -- a drug therapy. Once Merck realized that the doctor infrastructure was not in place in Africa for distribution of this drug, Merck began to fund doctors to go to Africa to distribute the product.

But they're not running commercials about it.

Why?

Because it's the right thing to do -- and medicine is, after all, "for the people - not for the profits."

Carter Center on Merck and river blindness

---

what are you, their public relations guy?

drug companies are in it for tha money. they dont find cures, they find drugs that temporarily treat your problem for the rest of your life. they dont want to heal you, they want to keep you buying their drug.

why should they sell you a bottle to cure you when they can get a membership from you and you buy a bottle for the rest of your life?

It's the drug companies fault people take drugs.

Btw, those are some gorgeous tits gals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TPark

Lawsuit bad.

Gub-mint good

Ugh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I understand that Vioxxx may have caused his stroke, but why was Tim Derk taking anti-inflammatories daily for two years?

---

I was taking celebrex for my torn meniscus. I helped alleviate any inflammation.

we trust drug companies to help us but facts are facts, the USA system of capitalism and medicine is a horrible mix. it's literally a conflict of interest.
making money over your health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

we trust drug companies to help us but facts are facts, the USA system of capitalism and medicine is a horrible mix. it's literally a conflict of interest.
making money over your health.

---

And yet the USA has the best medical facilities and treatment in the world...

MiamiHeat isn't quite as correct as his/her certainty would indicate, but your response is a complete non sequitur.

The Saüdis have some of the best living facilities in the world...