Reply With Quote
no comment."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
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.
no comment."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
I sure hope he wins...
Everyone must miss him.
The new coyote just isn't the same...although he does get ejected from games.
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.
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?
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.
Jerks?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.
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.
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
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 criminalWe 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."
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:
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."It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear."
Don't try to make a scarecrow agrument Capitalism vs. Socialism...
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.
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
