This case was last updated from PACER on 09/24/2021 at 12:53:19 (UTC).

KEINGARSKY et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al

Case Summary

On September, 16, 2021, Pearl Keingarsky (“Plaintiff”), represented by Margaret Elizabeth Cordner of Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP, filed a product liability lawsuit against Merck & Co., Inc., (“Merck”), Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“MSD”) and Mckesson Corp. (“McKesson”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and other reliefs for Defendants’ alleged acts of fraudulent concealment, affirmative misrepresentations and omissions of material fact. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey with Judge Peter G. Sheridan and Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni presiding.

 

The Plaintiff brings these claims within the applicable statute of limitations because Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s healthcare providers allegedly did not discover and could not reasonably discover the defects and unreasonably dangerous condition of ZOSTAVAX. Plaintiff alleged that each Defendant had a duty to disclose the fact that ZOSTAVAX was not safe or effective, was defective, was unreasonably dangerous and that using ZOSTAVAX for routine health maintenance and shingles prevention carried the above-described risks.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Merck, MSD and McKesson had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the design, research, manufacture, marketing, testing, advertisement, supply, promotion, packaging, sale, and distribution of ZOSTAVAX including the duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to manufacture and sell a product that was not defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers and users of the product.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendants each had a duty to warn physicians, pharmacists, medical and/or healthcare providers, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s healthcare providers, of the material and significant risks of serious bodily injury and viral infection resulting from and/or associated with use of ZOSTAVAX, which Defendants knew or should have known existed.”

 

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendants each had a duty to warn physicians, pharmacists, medical and/or healthcare providers, including but not limited to Plaintiffs’ healthcare providers, of the potential hazards of ZOSTAVAX, including but not limited to the decreased efficacy of ZOSTAVAX with advancing age, and ZOSTAVAX’s waning efficacy post-inoculation over time to effectively zero after four years, which Defendants knew or should have known existed.”

 

There are eight claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim is for alleged negligence, the second claim is for alleged design and manufacturing defect, the third claim is for alleged failure to warn, the fourth claim is for alleged breach of express warranty, the fifth claim is for alleged breach of implied warranty, the sixth claim is for alleged unjust enrichment, the seventh claim is for alleged loss of consortium and the eight claim is for punitive damages.

 

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court pass an order for general damages, including without limitation, past and future pain and suffering, past and future emotional distress, past and future loss of enjoyment of life and other consequential damages including special damages, statutory damages and exemplary and punitive damages. The Plaintiff also requested the Court pass an order for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on general and special damages and costs and attorneys' fees as well as other such relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-17058

  • Filing Date:

    09/16/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical/Pharmaceutical Product Liability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Peter G. Sheridan

Referral Judge

Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PEARL KEINGARSKY

Defendants

MERCK & CO., INC.

2000 Galloping Hill Rd.

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP.

2000 Galloping Hill Road

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

MCKESSON CORP.

6535 N. State Highway 161

Irving, TX 75039

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MARGARET ELIZABETH CORDNER

Attorney at MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP

60 E. 42Nd Street, Suite 950

New York, NY 10165

 

Court Documents

#2

(#2) SUMMONS ISSUED as to MCKESSON CORP., MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (mg) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

1 #3

Summons MCKESSON SUMMONS

1 #2

Summons MSD SUMMONS

1 #1

Summons MERCK SUMMONS

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) SUMMONS ISSUED as to MCKESSON CORP., MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (mg) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • DocketJudge Peter G. Sheridan and Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni added. (mg) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against MCKESSON CORP., MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP. ( Filing and Admin fee $ 402 receipt number ANJDC-12807912) with JURY DEMAND, filed by PEARL KEINGARSKY. (Attachments: #1 Summons MERCK SUMMONS, #2 Summons MSD SUMMONS, #3 Summons MCKESSON SUMMONS)(CORDNER, MARGARET) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MERCK & CO. INC. D/B/A MERCK, SHARP & DOHME CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. is a litigant

Latest cases where McKesson Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARGARET ELIZABETH CORDNER