Australia: Vioxx appeal in Full Federal Court successful

Last Updated: 18 October 2011
Article by Jessica Kinny and Wendy Blacker

On 12 October 2011 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Chief Justice Keane and Justices Bennett and Gordon JJ (their Honours) allowed an appeal of the Federal Court decision to award compensation to a claimant who claimed consumption of Vioxx caused him to have a heart attack in 2003.

The drug

Vioxx, a "Cox-2" inhibitor, was approved for sale in 1999. Vioxx was an anti-inflammatory drug that was prescribed to patients suffering from the effects of arthritis. At the time the drug was considered revolutionary because, unlike similar medications, the drug did not have any gastrointestinal side-effects.

Merck Sharpe & Dohme Australia (MSDA) withdrew Vioxx on 30 September 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of certain cardiovascular adverse events.

The class action

Mr Peterson represented a defined class including all persons who after 30 June 1999 were prescribed Vioxx (in Australia) and who within 30 weeks of consuming Vioxx suffered one or more specific cardiovascular conditions.

Mr Peterson alleged that Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular disease and that the distributor MSDA knew or should have known this prior to the drug's voluntary recall in 2004.

The class action was launched against the respondents in 2005 based in negligence and on various alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA), now the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

Mr Peterson was awarded $287,000 in 2010 by Justice Christopher Jessup. His Honour found Mr Peterson was entitled to recover damages pursuant to ss 74B and 74D of the TPA, finding (respectively) that:

  1. Vioxx was not reasonably fit for the purpose implicitly made known to MSDA (i.e. the safe relief of arthritic pain); and
  2. Vioxx was not of merchantable quality because it was reasonable for a consumer to expect that a medication for the relief of arthritic pain would not involve a doubled risk of heart attack.

This finding was made notwithstanding that Justice Jessup also held that MSDA was entitled to the 'state of the art' defence under s 75AK(1)(c) of the TPA.

Mr Peterson also unsuccessfully alleged breaches of ss 52 and 75AD of the TPA, the former failing due to want of causation and the latter failing due to the operation of the 'state of the art' defence.

Did Vioxx cause Mr Peterson's heart attack?

Justice Jessup's ultimately determined that Vioxx had caused Mr Peterson's heart attack.

Counsel for Mr Peterson submitted that his Honour's findings of ultimate fact were sufficient to sustain the judgment. Counsel for MSDA submitted that his Honour's express refusal to find that Mr Peterson's heart attack would not have happened but for the taking of Vioxx meant that Mr Peterson's case should have been dismissed for want of an essential factual finding that it was more probably than not that the consumption of Vioxx caused or materially contributed to the occurrence of his heart attack1.

Their Honours referred to the 'but for' test for causation in Chappel v Hart2 in which Justice McHugh said: ... if a wrongful act or omission results in an increased risk of injury to the plaintiff and that risk eventuates, the defendant's conduct has materially contributed to the injury that the plaintiff suggests whether or not other factors also contributed to that injury occurring...3, and other cases approving the 'but for' test.

Ultimately, their Honours held that it was not sufficiently proven that Mr Paterson's heart attack would not have occurred 'but for' the ingestion of Vioxx in the primary hearing, and therefore Justice Jessup's ultimate findings of fact on causation were not sufficient4. Further, their Honours through their own examination of the evidence produced in the appeal were not convinced that it was more probable than not that the consumption of Vioxx was a necessary condition of Mr Peterson's heart attack, although this might not be the case for other applicants represented in the proceedings5.

The past consumption cross-appeal

Mr Peterson cross-appealed against Justice Jessup's rejection of the submission that past consumption of Vioxx more or less continuously in the past increased the risk of a person suffering a heart attack, even in cases where Vioxx was not consumed in the weeks immediately preceding the occurrence of the heart attack. It was submitted that such consumption might have contributed to Mr Peterson's heart attack by the absorption of thrombi into endothelial plaque.

The significance of rejecting this alternative mechanism was that it restricted the potential pool of representative parties who might bring an action against MSDA.

This argument was rejected by their Honours, who concluded that a causative link had to be established and was not in the primary hearing. Their Honours confirmed that even if there was a plausible explanation that earlier consumption of Vioxx could result in a Vioxx-induced cardiovascular event, this alone does not support a finding that the cardiovascular event in question was caused by Vioxx6.

Negligence and s 52 of the TPA

Although the claim failed for want of causation, Mr Peterson was successful in the primary hearing in establishing that a failure to notify prescribing doctors and the general public of potentially harmful side effects may be considered misleading and deceptive conduct under s52 of the TPA.

His Honour found that MSDA sales representatives did use the product information for Vioxx in their 'sales pitch' to doctors and this would be a promotion activity in relation to, or for the purposes of, the supply of goods or services to actual or potential users of the product7. His Honour also found that these representations – which did not include a safety warning based on the results of the VIGOR trial – were likely to mislead or deceive.

On appeal, MSDA contended that the finding of a breach was reached unfairly, as the focus ofa breach was reached unfairly, as the focus of Mr Peterson's case was the adequacy of the warning conveyed by the amendment to the Vioxx product information, not the adequacy of the means by which that information was conveyed to medical practitioners. This was accepted by their Honours, who again left open the opportunity for other members of the represented group who might make out this element of their case8.

MSDA also argued that the regulatory regime based on the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) precluded the possibility of common law obligations co-existing with the legislation, but their Honours rejected this submission.

Sections 74B and 74D of the TPA

On appeal, MSDA successfully challenged Justice Jessup's finding that Mr Peterson was entitled to recover damages pursuant to these sections. Their Honours held that Mr Peterson did not establish that he suffered loss or damage by reason of otherwise actionable conduct on the part of MSDA for a breadth of evidentiary reasons9.

In answer to s 74B, their Honours held that the purpose for which Vioxx was acquired did not include: ... as a negative element of that purpose, some quality of absolute safety or complete absence of adverse side effect10. In addition, even if the proposition that Vioxx doubled the risk of Mr Peterson having a heart attack (which it was not), it was not relevant unless that negative element was properly made out.11

In effect, their Honours stated that it could not be presumed in law that Mr Peterson acquired Vioxx for a particular purpose which included the purpose of not exposing himself to other life-threatening conditions.

In answer to s 74D, their Honours held that a consumer must suffer loss or damage by reason that the goods are not of merchantable quality and, as their Honours were not convinced that it was more probable than not that the consumption of Vioxx was a necessary precondition of Mr Peterson's heart attack, liability could not be made out12.

Section 75AD of the TPA

The effect of s75AD is intended to be that any individual who is injured by a defective good13 can recover from the good's manufacturer or importer14.

MSDA appealed against the Justice Jessup's finding that Vioxx was 'defective' within the meaning of s 75AD of the TPA. Mr Peterson cross-appealed Justice Jessup's orders dismissing the s 75AD claim.

Their Honours rejected the appeal and cross-appeal.

Section 75AK(1)(c): state of the art defence

Mr Peterson cross-appealed against Justice Jessup's conclusions in relation to the availability of the defence under s 75AK(1)(c), submitting that the defence cannot apply if, at the time of supply, the defect had already been discovered. Mr Peterson submitted that his Honour should have found that the defect in Vioxx had been discovered by no later than March 2000, when the results of the first study (the VIGOR study) were released.

Their Honours ruled against Mr Peterson, stating that: ... the state of scientific knowledge at the time... was not just the results of the VIGOR study but the conclusions to be drawn from it15. Their Honours held that the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time the drug was supplied to Mr Peterson was not sufficient to enable MSDA to know of the defects or risks posed, so the defect was not discoverable16.

The significance of the appeal

The 'state of the art defence' under s 75AK of the TPA (now s 142 Australian Consumer Law) operates for an important policy reason: to encourage innovation in the pharmaceutical industry by protecting those innovators from liability for defects that human knowledge, research and foresight could not have prevented.

The effect of Justice Jessup's judgment was that it appeared to allow a manufacturer to escape liability for a defective product under the 'state of the art' defence, only to allow the claim to be revived once more by a finding that there was an implied manufacturers' warranty, which imposed a strict liability on the manufacturer.

The judgment steps away from this interpretation.

Footnotes

1 Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 93.
2 (1998) 195 CLR 232.
3 (1998) 195 CLR 232 at [27].
4Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 104-105.
5Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 126.
6Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 143.
72010 judgmentat 604
8Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 159.
9Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 165.
10Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 172.
11Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 173.
12Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 179.
13Defined under s75AC Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
14s75AB Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
15Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 207.
16Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2011] FCAFC 128 at 208.

For more information, please contact:

Sydney



Wendy Blacker

t (02) 9931 4922

e wblacker@nsw.gadens.com.au

Melbourne



Lionel Appelboom

t (03) 8738 6061

e lappelboom@vic.gadens.com.au

This report does not comprise legal advice and neither Gadens Lawyers nor the authors accept any responsibility for it.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions