I am generally sympathetic to the concept of personal inury litigation as a way to correct wrongs, but reading crap like this makes it hard to stay that way.
Your father?s stroke may have been caused by his high blood pressure; however, the study that led to the recall of Vioxx from the marketplace showed that users of Vioxx had almost doubled chances of heart attack or stroke, so the chances that your father?s use of Vioxx contributed to his stroke are pretty high.
You should certainly consult with an experienced personal injury Vioxx attorney as soon as possible to discuss your father?s case. You should be able to bring an action against Merck Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Vioxx. Merck knew that Vioxx caused an increased risk of stroke, yet continued to market the drug. However, Merck will certainly point to your father?s high blood pressure as the cause of his stroke, and your damages may be lessened or even eliminated due to this fact.
A case against your father?s doctor, however, may be much easier to prove. As early as 2001, Merck was instructed by the FDA to send letters to healthcare professionals, warning them of the increased risk of heart attack and stroke. In 2002, the FDA forced Merck to relabel Vioxx, recommending that the drug not be prescribed to patients with heart conditions and pointing out the study showing that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes. Your father?s doctor clearly knew about your father?s high blood pressure as he was prescribing drugs for that condition. Therefore, he should also have known that it was dangerous for your father to use Vioxx. Prescribing Vioxx for your father was professionally unreasonable and negligent on the part of your father?s doctor. This case will probably be more lucrative to you in terms of damages for your father?s stroke.
I love how confident the writers are in their assertions.