Levitt v. Merck & Co., No. 17-2630 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Merck after she suffered cardiovascular injuries allegedly from taking a medication called Vioxx. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. The district court held that plaintiff's claims accrued prior to September 2001 and thus her September 29, 2006 suit was time-barred. In Missouri, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is five years after the cause of action accrues.
The court held that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the evidence was such that a reasonably prudent person was on notice of a potentially actionable injury before September 29, 2001. The court predicted that the state supreme court would conclude that mere knowledge in the medical community of a possible link between Vioxx and heart problems did not, as a matter of law, place a reasonably prudent person in plaintiff's position on notice of a potentially actionable injury.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Products liability. In an action claiming plaintiff was injured by the pain and anti-inflammation drug Vioxx, the district court erred in determining as a matter of law that her 2006 suit was time-barred because her claims accrued prior to September, 2001; there was still a question of fact for the jury to decide because contradictory conclusions could be drawn as to whether the evidence was such as to place a reasonably prudent person on notice of a potentially actionable injury before September 29, 2001; the court predicts the Missouri Supreme Court would conclude that mere knowledge in the medical community of a possible link between Vioxx and heart problems did not, as a matter of law, place a reasonably prudent person in plaintiff's position on notice of a potentially actionable injury. Judge Colloton, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.