Salem, OR - A bill pending in Oregon's state Senate that would adjust the state's statute of limitations to allow Vioxx-related injury suits to move forward has stalled in the Senate's chambers. Now, frustrated Vioxx users who say the painkiller caused their heart problems are trying to revive the bill that would allow them to file lawsuits against the drug's maker. Determined opposition from the drug industry is the culprit.

The Oregon saga is just the latest to be confronted by Merck & Co., which has faced thousands of suits across the country since the company withdrew Vioxx from the market in September after a study showed an increased risk of heart attacks.

Many Oregon users of the drug cannot sue here because of an unusual gap in the state's law regarding time limits for bringing legal action. "I've just been shocked it's not been seen as an issue of fairness," said Kal Larmi, a retired community college instructor from Pendleton who took Vioxx and later suffered a stroke that left him partially paralyzed. "The right to seek redress in the courts is basic."

Senators opposed to the bill say they don't want to unleash more litigation that could drive up the cost of health care. "It's a really interesting clash between the issue of compassion (for injured Vioxx users) and the issue of the reality of living in a litigious society," said Senate Minority Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day. He said he came down on the side of trying to keep the current limits on access to the courts.

For years, Oregon courts allowed lawsuits to be brought within two years of an injury, or, in an interpretation advantageous to plaintiffs, within two years of the discovery of an injury. In 2001, however, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the two-year limit on bringing a lawsuit was absolute, regardless of when the harm was discovered. The 2003 Legislature stepped in and restored the old time limits, but only for injuries occurring after Jan. 1, 2004.

The result has been the exclusion of many Oregon users of Vioxx from court seeking redress for their injuries. The drug came on the market in 1999, but users say they didn't know of a possible link between the painkiller and their heart problems until the drug was withdrawn from the market last year.

The statute of limitations issue is complicated by news reports that have cited company documents suggesting that Merck sought to hide evidence of problems with the drug, which the company denies. National Public Radio recently ran a series saying the company sought to censor researchers who questioned the drug's safety.

More than a dozen users of the drug and their family members appeared at a news conference sponsored by Vioxx Victims United. The group is seeking passage of Oregon Senate Bill 1011, which would allow the lawsuits. The group has received financial backing from trial lawyers seeking to bring Vioxx cases in the courts.

Sen. David Nelson, R-Pendleton, announced his support for the measure at the news conference. He is the sole Senate Republican to back SB1011. "It is a simple bill giving these people fair and equal access under the law," said Nelson, "and yet it is frustratingly mired in controversy." Several of Nelson's Republican colleagues said they regarded the 2003 legislation as a deal they did not want to violate. In exchange for restoring the old time limits, legislators agreed to confine lawsuits to new injuries. "I believe the statute of limitations in place is reasonable," said Sen. Frank Morse, R-Corvallis, "and if you start changing them, where do we end?"

Opposition is not limited to Republicans. Some Democrats also oppose the bill, which is why the measure is languishing in a chamber with an 18-12 Democratic majority. Sen. Joanne Verger, D-Coos Bay, said she went into shock when given a form of penicillin when she was nine months' pregnant. "My point is it was not the fault of the doctor, it was not the fault of the manufacturer," she said. ". . . Life has risks."

Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, said she would bring the bill to the Senate floor if she could get the necessary 16 votes, a task she didn't know if she could accomplish.