The Vioxx Information is Authored by National Pharmaceutical Product Liability Lawyers, Raymond L. Henke and Nicholas Allis.

Pharmaceutical product liability lawyers Nicholas Allis and Raymond Henke have collaborated in bringing you the Vioxx information presented on this web site. Mr. Allis and Mr. Henke have separate law firms but once practiced together in the nationally regarded pharmaceutical product liability law firm of Butler, Dan, Allis & Reback. Their purpose in authoring this informational site is to provide information with regard to the Vioxx recall, the Vioxx clinical studies, and the possible directions the Vioxx litigation may take, including, perhaps most importantly, in recommending that the potential Vioxx claimant consider the merits of his alternatives, including the separate prosecution of his or her individual case as national and state class actions spring up across the country.

Both Mr. Henke and Mr. Allis are "AV" rated lawyers, the highest "legal ability" and "general ethical standards" ratings awarded by Martindale & Hubbell. Mr. Allis and Mr. Henke have also served as President and Governor respectively of major trial lawyers associations. Each has received trial lawyer association awards. Mr. Allis, the "President's Award," Mr. Henke nominated "Trial Lawyer of the Year" for his important work in landmark drug litigation. Mr. Henke's trial work in AIDS drug litigation has been widely chronicalled in the national legal newspapers, magazines and journals, as well as in the national legitimate lay press, from a front page article in the New York Times to front page "Collumn One" in the Los Angeles Times, as well as in the legitimate television news media, e.g., Tom Brokaw's NBC Evening News and CNN. Mr. Henke has also testified before the US Congress at the invitation of the Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee with regard to his drug litigation and use of punitive damages to punish the manufacturer and distributor defendants.

Both Mr. Allis and Mr. Henke have published articles in national and state trial lawyer association jounals, so that this joint project in "publishing" this informational website is an extension of their legal journalism. Mr. Henke also served as the Editor-in-Chief of the"Advocate" legal magazine, one of the largest circulation trial lawyer association magazines in the United States.

The information provided herein with regard to the possible paths the infant Vioxx litigation may take is based upon the substantial breadth of experience of Mr. Allis and Mr. Henke is prosecuting national and state pharmaceutical litigation.

Mr. Allis and Mr. Henke have participated in national phramaceutical product liability litigation for 25 and 16 years respectively, representing clients in the DES, Dalkon Shield, Thalidomide, DPT, Viroxan, Breast Implants, Fen-Phen, Tylenol. Mr. Henke is responsible for very important, landmark case law in drug cases, including federal 6th Circuit Cout of Appeals case law which governs generally the legitimate scope of phramaceutical class action and will determine the legitimate scope of the contemplated Vioxx class action. In re. Bendectin, 749 F.2d 300 (6th Cir. 1985). The Association of Trial Lawyers of America published Henke's legal artical explaining the significance and scope of this landmark case of national importance in the ATLA "Trial" Magazine, May, 1985.

The Bendectin case involved a "national mandatory class action," certified by a US. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, in which the majority of the plaintiffs lead counsel committee, over the objections of the minority, and over the objections of individual claimants and their attorneys nationwide, joined with the defendant pharmaceutical company in settling the 1000 cases of children born with birth defects filed just in the Southern District of Ohio alone, and all other filed and unfiled Bendectin birth defect cases nationwide. These were cases in which catastrophically injured plaintiffs in every state in the country and their attorneys had expressed no desire to participate in the class action, had not voluntarily joined the class action, but were prosecuting their cases separately. The settlement of $120,000,000.00 arrived at by the majority faction of the plaintiffs' lead counsel committee and the pharmaceutical company would have permitted these catastrophically injured children only a few thousand dollars each when all the class members were identified nationwide.

On behalf of one individual child with horrible limb defects who was pursuing his case independently in California, attorney Henke filed a petition for writ of mandamus - an "appeal" challanging the US District Court's certification of the national mandatory class action and the settlement which purported to bind him against his will - in the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the Court above the US Federal Court for the Southern District of Ohio which had certified the national mandatory class action and approved the $120,000,000.00 settlement.

Mr. Henke's argument to the US Court of Appeals was that the national mandatory class action infringed upon his individual client's right to be represented by counsel of his choice, Mr. Henke, and infringed on the client's control over the prosecution of his individual litigation. Mr. Henke argued that in the absence of a "limited fund" that there was no legitimate policy sufficient to overcome the individual plaintiff's rights, and hence, each must be permitted the right to "opt in" to class action or opt out and pursue his rights in separate litigation independently.

Through this date, the rule of this national landmark opinion controls the permissible scope of phramaceutical class action.

It is principally based upon this important knowledge and experience in opposing national mandatory class action that Henke has contributed, with Mr. Allis to the article herein on the possible directions the infant Vioxx litigation may take. The authors are by no means opposed to voluntary class action, even national Vioxx voluntary class action, as a means of processing some of the Vioxx litigation. The authors are not prepared to endorse it for every case, however. Indeed, the authors believe that the decision to joint Vioxx litigation should be made on a case by case basis. It is the authors' opinions that the potential client should obtain independent legal advise whether it is most advantageous to join a class action or prosecute the individual case separately.