• AREAS OF PRACTICE

• ANTITRUST
• CONSUMER FRAUD
• PRODUCT LIABILITY
• PERSONAL INJURY
• MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
• NURSING HOME ABUSE

• ABOUT SSEM

• CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS
• OUR ATTORNEYS
• CONTACT US
• LINKS

There have been suspicions that the diabetes drug Avandia® (rosiglitazone) has been associated with a greater incidence of heart attacks among those taking Avandia for long periods of time.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed data from a long-term study regarding the use of the diabetes drug Avandia® (rosiglitazone). The study, nicknamed RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes), was designed to evaluate how safe rosiglitazone (Avandia®) is for patients with Type II Diabetes Mellitus.

The RECORD report, released last weekend by the Committee on Finance Chair, Senator Max Baucus and ranking member Senator Chuck Grassley, concludes that there are “serious health risks associated with Avandia.”  It states that GlaxoSmithKline failed to disclose the cardiovascular risks to clinicians and patients.  The report includes more than 250,000 pages of documents provided by the company, the FDA, and several research institutes, as well as interviews with numerous people at GlasxoSmithKline, the FDA and “anonymous whistleblowers.”

In response to the RECORD study, the FDA announced FDA Avandia Safety Announcement on February 22, 2010 the possible cardiovascular risks with the use of Avandia® (rosiglitazone).  The FDA warned that patients who take Avandia® should be monitored for signs and symptoms of heart failure, including excessive and rapid weight gain, difficulty breathing and/or swelling.

If you or a family member were prescribed Avandia® (rosiglitazone) to treat Type II Diabetes and suffered serious cardiovascular problems, including myocardial infarction (heart attack); heart failure or death, you should immediately seek legal representation from an experienced pharmaceutical lawyer.  Please contact us for a free, no obligation, confidential consultation by calling 1-800-642-5297, or by submitting the contact form below:

WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J., Sept. 30, 2004 – Merck & Co., Inc. today announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx® (rofecoxib), its arthritis and acute pain medication. The company’s decision, which is effective immediately, is based on new, three-year data from a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx) trial.

The trial, which is being stopped, was designed to evaluate the efficacy of Vioxx 25 mg in preventing recurrence of colorectal polyps in patients with a history of colorectal adenomas. In this study, there was an increased relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, beginning after 18 months of treatment in the patients taking Vioxx compared to those taking placebo. The results for the first 18 months of the APPROVe study did not show any increased risk of confirmed cardiovascular events on Vioxx, and in this respect, are similar to the results of two placebo-controlled studies described in the current U.S. labeling for Vioxx.

“We are taking this action because we believe it best serves the interests of patients,” said Raymond V. Gilmartin, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Merck. “Although we believe it would have been possible to continue to market Vioxx with labeling that would incorporate these new data, given the availability of alternative therapies, and the questions raised by the data, we concluded that a voluntary withdrawal is the responsible course to take.”

APPROVe was a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to determine the effect of 156 weeks (three years) of treatment with Vioxx on the recurrence of neoplastic polyps of the large bowel in patients with a history of colorectal adenoma. The trial enrolled 2,600 patients and compared Vioxx 25 mg to placebo. The trial began enrollment in 2000.

Vioxx was launched in the United States in 1999 and has been marketed in more than 80 countries. In some countries, the product is marketed under the trademark CEOXX. Worldwide sales of Vioxx in 2003 were $2.5 billion.

Results of the VIGOR (Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research) study, released in March 2000, demonstrated that the risk of gastrointestinal toxicity with Vioxx was less than with naproxen, but indicated an increased risk of cardiovascular events versus naproxen. However, in other studies including Merck’s Phase III studies that were the basis of regulatory approval of the product, there was not an increased risk of cardiovascular events with Vioxx compared with placebo or Vioxx compared with other non-naproxen non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Merck began long-term randomized clinical trials to provide an even more comprehensive picture of the cardiovascular safety profile of Vioxx.

“Merck has always believed that prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials are the best way to evaluate the safety of medicines. APPROVe is precisely this type of study – and it has provided us with new data on the cardiovascular profile of Vioxx,” said Peter S. Kim, Ph.D., president of Merck Research Laboratories. “While the cause of these results is uncertain at this time, they suggest an increased risk of confirmed cardiovascular events beginning after 18 months of continuous therapy. While we recognize that Vioxx benefited many patients, we believe this action is appropriate.”

Merck has informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and regulatory authorities in other countries of its decision. The company also is in the process of notifying health care practitioners in the United States and other countries where Vioxx is marketed. Patients who are currently taking Vioxx should contact their health care providers to discuss discontinuing use of Vioxx and possible alternative treatments. In addition, patients and health care professionals may obtain information from www.merck.com and www.vioxx.com, or may call 1 (888) 36-Vioxx (1-888-368-4699).

The results of clinical studies with one molecule in a given class are not necessarily applicable to others in the class. Therefore, the clinical significance of the APPROVe trial, if any, for the long-term use of other drugs in this class, consisting of COX-2 specific inhibitors and NSAIDs, is unknown. The company will work with regulatory authorities in the 47 countries where Arcoxia is approved to assess whether changes to the prescribing information for this class of drugs, including Arcoxia, are warranted. Merck is continuing to seek approval for Arcoxia in other countries, including the United States.

Merck will continue its extensive clinical program to collect additional longer-term data for Arcoxia, its medication for arthritis and acute pain.

With regard to financial guidance, prior to today’s announcement, Merck remained comfortable with its 2004 earnings per share guidance of $3.11 to $3.17. The company currently expects earnings per share to be negatively affected by $0.50 to $0.60 as a result of today’s announcement. This estimate includes foregone sales, write-offs of inventory held by Merck, customer returns of product previously sold and costs to undertake the pullback of the product. Included in this cost estimate is the expectation of foregone fourth quarter sales of Vioxx of $700 million to $750 million. In addition, Merck expects that worldwide approximately one month of inventory is held by customers and will be returned.

At this point it is uncertain which of these costs will be recorded in the third quarter and which will be recorded in the fourth quarter. Therefore, at this point, Merck is retracting the third quarter guidance it had previously provided.

Merck will report third-quarter earnings on Oct. 21. At that point, the company will provide additional information regarding the costs for product withdrawal.

About Merck

Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company. Merck discovers, develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of innovative products to improve human and animal health, directly and through its joint ventures.

Forward Looking Statement

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the statements. The forward-looking statements may include statements regarding product development, product potential or financial performance. No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed, and actual results may differ materially from those projected. Merck undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Forward-looking statements in this press release should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect Merck’s business, particularly those mentioned in the cautionary statements in Item 1 of Merck’s Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2003, and in its periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K (if any), which the company incorporates by reference.

merck-press-release

Below is a summary of the important aspects of our Vioxx® investigation as well as some frequently asked questions regarding Vioxx®. Some of the following information was gathered from the New England Journal of Medicine article entitled “Failing the Public Health – Rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA” by Eric J. Topol, M.D. (New England Journal of Medicine: Perspective, October 6, 2004)

In the five-and-a-half year period since Vioxx® was introduced neither Merck or the FDA has lived up to its responsibilities to protect the public. The pivotal study submitted to the FDA that ultimately led to the approval of Vioxx® contained only 8076 patients and contained insufficient cardiovascular data. Because its submission to any peer-review documents was delayed for over one-and-a-half years, it went unknown that the cardiovascular data in the study was incomplete.

It took from 1999, when Vioxx® was approved, until February 2001, for the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee to meet and discuss concerns over potential cardiovascular risks associated with Vioxx®. Dr. Topol and his colleagues concluded that, based on a clear-cut excess number of myocardial infarctions, it should be mandatory to conduct a trial specifically assessing cardiovascular risk.

Over the next four years several independent studies were conducted, covering up to 1.4 million patients. Many of those studies confirmed the risk of serious cardiovascular events associated with the use of rofecoxib. Merck’s response to these studies always included claims that that particular study was flawed. All the while, Merck was spending more than $100 million dollars per year in marketing for Vioxx®.

Finally, on September 30, 2004, Vioxx® was withdrawn from the market. This was only after 80 million patients had taken Vioxx® leading to average annual sales of $2.5 billion.

The following was taken from “Coxibs and Cardiovascular Disease” by Garret A. FitzGerald, M.D. (New England Journal of Medicine: Perspective, October 6, 2004)

One of the mechanisms employed by Rofecoxib, the “depression of protaglandin I2 formation, might be expected to elevate blood pressure, accelerate atherogenesis, and predispose patients receiving coxibs to an exaggerated thrombotic response to the rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque.The higher a patient’s intrinsic risk of cardiovascular disease, the more likely it would be that such a hazard would manifest itself rapidly in the form of a clinical event.“

Return to Top

Vioxx Frequently Asked Questions

What is Vioxx®?

Vioxx®, also known as Rofecoxib, is a drug primarily prescribed as a pain killer for those that suffer from osteoarthritis. It has also been prescribed for the treatment of acute pain in adults, relief of menstrual symptoms, and more recently for the relief of pain in both adults and children suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. The drug was marketed and manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc.

What risks are associated with Vioxx®?

Patients most at risk are those that were taking Vioxx® for the reasons above but were either suffering from cardiovascular disease prior to taking Vioxx® or began suffering from a cardiovascular disease while taking Vioxx®. Cardiovascular diseases include high blood pressure, heart attack and stroke.

What should I do if I am taking Vioxx®?

If you are taking Vioxx® you should consult with your physician immediately to discuss discontinuing the use of Vioxx®. Merck has discontinued their Patient Refund Program, but they still strongly recommend that you return any unused Vioxx® still in your possession to the NNC. Please call the National Notification Center at 1-800-805-9542 for return instructions.

Did the FDA require this action?

No, Merck made this decision independent of input from FDA. The Agency has not had an opportunity to review the data from the study that was stopped in the depth that Merck has, but agrees with the company that there appear to be significant safety concerns for patients, particularly those taking the drug chronically.

FDA plans to work closely with Merck to coordinate the withdrawal of this product from the US market.

What evidence supports the FDA Public Health Advisory?

Merck’s decision to withdraw Vioxx® from the market is based on new data from a trial called the APPROVe ["Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx®"] trial. In the APPROVe trial, Vioxx® was compared to placebo (sugar-pill). The purpose of the trial was to see if Vioxx® 25 mg was effective in preventing the recurrence of colon polyps. This trial was stopped early because there was an increased risk for serious cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes, first observed after 18 months of continuous treatment with Vioxx® compared with placebo.

Why wasn’t the APPROVe trial stopped earlier?

The APPROVe trial began enrollment in 2000. The trial was being monitored by an independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB). It was not stopped earlier because the results for the first 18 months of the trial did not show any increased risk of confirmed cardiovascular events on Vioxx®.

What did FDA know about the risk of heart attack and stroke when it approved Vioxx®?

FDA originally approved Vioxx® in May 1999. The original safety database included approximately 5000 patients on Vioxx® and did not show an increased risk of heart attack or stroke. A later study, VIGOR (Vioxx® GI Outcomes Research), was primarily designed to look at the effects of Vioxx® on side effects such as stomach ulcers and bleeding and was submitted to the FDA in June 2000. The study showed that patients taking Vioxx® had fewer stomach ulcers and bleeding than patients taking naproxen, another NSAID, however, the study also showed a greater number of heart attacks in patients taking Vioxx®. The VIGOR study was discussed at a February 2001 Arthritis Advisory Committee and the new safety information from this study was added to the labeling for Vioxx® in April 2002. Merck then began to conduct longer-term trials to obtain more data on the risk for heart attack and stroke with chronic use of Vioxx®.

What other drugs are similar to Vioxx®?

Vioxx® is a COX-2 selective, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Other COX-2 selective NSAIDs on the market at this time are Celebrex® (celecoxib) and Bextra® (valdecoxib). Vioxx® is also related to the nonselective NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen. You should consult your physician to determine which treatment is right for you.

Does Merck’s action suggest that other drugs in the same class are dangerous?

The results of clinical studies with one drug in a given class do not necessarily apply to other drugs in the same class. All of the NSAIDs have risks when taken chronically, especially of gastrointestinal (stomach) bleeding, but also liver and kidney toxicity. Patients using these drugs for a long period of time (longer than two weeks) should be under the care of a physician.

Can my pharmacist continue to fill my prescription for Vioxx®?

No, Merck is initiating a market withdrawal in the United States to the pharmacy level. This means Vioxx® will no longer be available at pharmacies.

Return to Top

If you believe that you or a relative were injured by taking Vioxx® please use the form below to contact our law firm.

Six months after the drug industry vowed to make its clinical trials more available, and three months after launching a common website to give the public “unprecedented access” to studies both good and bad, drug companies have posted unpublished trial results on the site for just five drugs.

Pfizer Inc. voluntarily disclosed unpublished study results on only one of the 29 prescription brand-name drugs it actively markets in the U.S.

Merck & Co. posted a listing for its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx®, but clicking on the link reveals nothing but another link to the product’s label and a list of two previously published studies, but not the studies themselves.

The lack of information comes amid heightened public concern about drugs similar toVioxx®, such as Pfizer’s Celebrex® and Bextra®. Pfizer has not posted any information onCelebrex® or Bextra®. A spokeswoman declined to say when the company would post past studies or if unpublished data on the heavily prescribed drugs even exist.

“It’s pathetic,” said Dr. Drummond Rennie, associate editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association and an advocate for mandatory disclosure of all clinical trial results. “They get all the publicity from saying they will do it, and then they don’t.”

Some legislators, physicians, editors of academic medical journals, and consumer groups said the snail’s pace of voluntary disclosure is all the more reason Congress this session should make laws to require that companies disclose all information to the public about potentially life-threatening side effects. “The drug companies just hide the negative results and hope the public can’t seek them out,” said U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts democrat and sponsor of one of several initiatives in Congress that would make disclosures of clinical trial data mandatory.

Last week, the industry launched an initiative for an international disclosure database and pledged to list the launch of more clinical trials on a National Institutes of Health website. The announcements were the latest of at least four announcements since last June about increasing the volume of voluntary disclosures.

Companies generally keep the existence of unpublished studies secret. Companies notify the FDA if a trial is performed in the U.S., but the data generally only have to be made public if they are part of the FDA application for an approved drug. Such rules make estimating the amount of unpublished data from clinical trials difficult if not impossible, said editors of some medical journals and consulting firms. Rennie estimated in a July 2003 study that 1 million late-stage, controlled clinical trials had been conducted since 1948, and that only half the results were published, although many have been presented as a poster or paper at scientific conferences.

Academics and physicians for several years had been pushing for more clinical trial disclosures before the issued gained momentum in 2004 when New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued GlaxoSmithKline. Spitzer alleged that the British drug giant suppressed safety concerns about the effects of its antidepressant Paxil® in children and adolescents. GlaxoSmithKline settled for $2.5 million in August of 2004 without admitting wrongdoing.

The New England Journal of Medicine and other prominent medical journals said they will require that drug companies disclose the launch of all drug studies as a condition of publication of the eventual results. he requirement, to take effect in July 2005, will allow physicians and the public to at least be aware of every study being conducted.

Members of Congress, including Markey in the House and Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, introduced legislation to make trial disclosures mandatory. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is considering similar legislation.

The presentation of individual drugs on a common website falls short of industry promises for a central, easy-to-use location to find critical health information, said Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It’s not like they fit into a template,” he said. “Everyone’s kind of putting stuff in their own way. You don’t know where to look, and you might miss something.”

The industry’s performance thus far, he added, “is not at all surprising. Their past behavior suggests that would be a legitimate reason for what’s going on right now.”

If you or a loved one were injured through the use of a pharmaceutical product or dietary supplement please use the form below to contact our law firm.

SSEM successfully investigated and prosecuted individual claims for its clients who were injured as a consequence of taking the prescription drug Vioxx® (rofecoxib). In November 2007, Merck established a $4.85 billion fund to settle most of the Vioxx® suits.  That fund was divided into two funds:  a $4 billion fund for people who claimed that they suffered heart attacks as a result of Vioxx® use; and an $850 million fund for those who suffered ischemic strokes.

On March 2, 2010, Merck & Co. announced that it had made a final $4.1 billion payment to its Vioxx® settlement fund and that it anticipated that the final payouts to former Vioxx® users or their survivors should be made by the end of June 2010.

Summary

On September 30, 2004, Merck & Company announced that it was withdrawing its arthritis drug Vioxx® from the market worldwide. The reason given was that “a clinical trial found an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.” This was a big step for Merck because Vioxx was one of its most important drugs, with sales in 2003 of $2.5 billion.

Vioxx® FAQs

Vioxx® Press Release (from Merck & Co.)

What Merck did not say was that the findings were nothing that should have surprised it since researchers have been warning about a connection between Vioxx and an increased risk of heart attack and stroke for years. Until September 2004, Merck brushed those studies aside, saying they were inconclusive because they lacked the rigor of a placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Merck knew for some time that Vioxx presented a problem. On September 17, 2001, the Food and Drug Administration sent Chief Executive Gilmartin an eight-page warning letter*, wherein the FDA said that Merck engaged “in a promotional campaign for Vioxx that minimizes the potentially serious cardiovascular findings that were observed” in a clinical trial comparing Vioxx® to naproxen, a less-expensive painkiller. “Your promotional campaign discounts the fact” that in the trial, “patients on Vioxx® were observed to have a four- to five-fold increase” in heart attacks, compared with patients on naproxen, the letter said.

* FDA Letter to Merck (PDF Download)

Attorney John Evans (who manages the firm’s pharmaceutical practice) noted that the FDA approved the use of Vioxx® for infants over the weight of 22 pounds only two weeks prior to the worldwide withdrawal. The information Merck provided to the FDA in seeking this approval in the face of data showed a high correlation between Vioxx® and heart attack/stroke.

A class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:09-cv-00514-JFC) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased shares of the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Fund (the “Pennsylvania Fund” or “Fund”) between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008 (“Class Period”).

The complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania Fund, Oppenheimer Funds and certain of its officers and trustees violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 by departing from the stated investment premise and otherwise injured Fund shareholders. The complaint alleges the Pennsylvania Fund is a municipal bond fund yielding interest income exempt from federal and Pennsylvania income taxes. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Registration Statements and Prospectuses misled investors about the Fund’s investment objectives, policies and the underlying risk by characterizing its investments as consistent with preservation of capital. In fact, the complaint alleges the Fund lost over 33% of its net asset value (“NAV”) in 2008 compared with an average peer group loss of approximately 9.5%. The complaint alleges that capital preservation was disregarded as the Fund significantly increased exposure through excessively risky strategies not properly disclosed to investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the overarching principle of capital preservation was compromised by concentrating large positions in low rated bonds, bonds not reviewed by an independent rating agency and by portfolio concentration in high risk securities including, Tobacco Bonds, Dirt Bonds, and Inverse Floaters.

Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages on behalf of all investors in Pennsylvania Fund who purchased or held shares between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008. Plaintiff is represented by Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C., a highly regarded Pittsburgh law firm litigating complex class action cases throughout the country.

As a member of the Class described above, you may, not later than June 29, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class or choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you want to discuss this matter or your rights or interests, please contact us by using the form below.

Aviation accidents are no accident.  To put it another way, planes do not fall out of the sky unless there has been negligence or a defect in the aircraft.  Commercial aircraft have the latest technology to assist in the investigation of why an event occurred.  However, that does not relieve the family of the injured victim of the duty to prove negligence or a defect in the aircraft.

Understanding just why a tragedy occurred requires early investigation on the part of the attorney and an understanding of aviation technology.  Your attorney must also be able to investigate the safety history of the particular aircraft.  Our attorneys can readily access the history of every commercial air event.  Their understanding of the workings of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) allow us learn what happened, why it happened and to maximize recoveries for our clients.

Commercial jet crashes understandably get a great deal of media attention.  They also get the attention of attorneys seeking to represent the families of victims.  The fees that these attorneys charge can vary just as their level of expertise varies.  Federal law limits when an attorney may contact family members but it does not limit a family member from reaching out to an attorney.

Attorneys at Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C. have successfully represented victims of commercial aviation disasters as well as those in private and military aircraft and we can help you.

USAir Flight 427

Howard Specter of Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C. served as Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the litigation following the tragic crash of USAir Flight 427 on September 8, 1994, killing everyone on board.

USAir Flight 427 was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Chicago-O’Hare International Airport to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The Boeing 737 was maneuvering to land at Pittsburgh International Airport, when the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and impacted terrain near Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, about 6 miles northwest of the destination airport. All 132 people on board were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and fire.

After the longest investigation in aviation history (more than four and a half years) [Link to Accident Investigation Docket http://www.ntsb.gov/events/usair427/items.htm], the concluding statement said:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the USAir Flight 427 accident was a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit.  The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide.

The NTSB concluded that similar rudder problems caused the previously mysterious March 1991 crash of United Airlines 535 and the June 1996 incident involving Eastwind Airlines Flight 517, both involving Boeing 737s.  As a result of the investigation of the crash of USAirways Flight 427, pilots were warned of and trained how to deal with insufficient aileron authority at an airspeed at or less than 190 knots (formerly the usual approach speed for a B737). Four additional channels of information (pilot rudder pedal commands) were incorporated into flight data recorders, while Boeing redesigned the rudder system on 737s and retrofitted existing craft until the affected systems could be replaced.

Safety recommendations concerning these issues were addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Also, as a result of this accident, the Safety Board issued a total of 22 safety recommendations to the FAA on October 18, 1996, and February 20, 1997, regarding operation of the 737 rudder system and unusual attitude recovery procedures. In addition, as a result of this accident and the United Airlines flight 585 accident (involving a 737-291) on March 3, 1991, the Safety Board issued three recommendations (one of which was designated “urgent”) to the FAA on February 22, 1995, regarding the need to increase the number of FDR parameters.

The crash of USAir Flight 427 also changed the way airlines and governments deal with families.  Families of the victims of USAir Flight 427 formed a nonprofit group, The National Air Disaster Alliance, which was instrumental in leading President Bill Clinton to issue an Executive Order in 1996.  Congress passed the Disaster Family Assistance Act later that year.  The National Air Disaster Alliance continues to help other victims of air crashes and lobbies for safety changes.

“I can’t think of one accident that had more impact on the NTSB, on the aviation industry, and more importantly, on how families of all disasters are treated worldwide than the Pittsburgh accident,” said Jim Hall, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board during the Flight 427 investigation.

If you have questions about an aviation accident, you should contact us.  We will discuss with you the aviation event as we know it and explain how we will handle your case, all without obligation to use our services.  All information will remain confidential.