Zostavax Side Effects Resulted in Acute Heart Failure, Lawsuit Claims

  • Written by: Irvin Jackson

Contact A Lawyer

Have A Potential Case Reviewed By An Attorney

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

According to allegations raised in a recently filed product liability lawsuit, side effects of the Zostavax vaccine not only failed to prevent the development of shingles, but actually resulted in acute heart failure.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Douglas Bannerman in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 18, blaming the vaccine manufacturer, Merck & Co. for a host of serious complications he suffered after receiving the shingles vaccine.

According to the lawsuit, Bannerman was inoculated with Zostavax in October 2016, for routine health maintenance and for the purpose of preventing shingles. However, after receiving the vaccine, Bannerman developed a shingles outbreak on his chest, upper back and over his right arm.

“A few weeks later Plaintiff started to experience shortness of breath, fever and dyspnea,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with acute hypertensive emergency with pulmonary edema and acute heart failure.”

Bannerman’s lawsuit blames the health emergency and heart failure on Zostavax, indicating  it was caused by side effects of the live virus contained in the shingles vaccine.

Zostavax was introduced in 2006, involving a single-dose injection that was designed to vaccinate older adults against the development of shingles. However, the live virus vaccine has been linked to a large number of reports involving severe complications, where individuals experienced more persistent shingles outbreaks, as well as other infections and auto-immune disorders, shortly after exposure to the vaccine.

The complaint joins hundreds of other Zostavax vaccine lawsuits filed by individuals throughout the U.S. Court System, each raising similar allegations that Merck sold an under-attenuated vaccine, which was unreasonably dangerous and defective, since the live-virus was not sufficiently weakened.

Given similar questions of fact and law raised in the lawsuits over Zostavax, the federal litigation is centralized before U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a federal MDL, or multi-district litigation.

As lawyers continue to investigate and file additional claims on behalf of people who have experienced problems from Zostavax, the size of the litigation is expected to continue to grow over the coming months and years.

If Merck fails to reach Zostavax settlements or another resolution for the claims following bellwether trials, each individual lawsuit may eventually be remanded back to different U.S. District courts nationwide for separate trial dates in the future.

Tags: , , ,


  1. Pat Reply

    No way on earth would I take this shot. I would rather suffer the pain of my herpes simplex 2 any day than to risk the sided effects of this crapy shot or even death.

  2. Greg Reply

    Why can Merck be sued for this vax and not for most others?

  3. Angela Reply

    The zostavax is a vaccine for adults, it is not on the ACIPs reccommended vaccine schedule for children, therefore it is not immune from lawsuits like the childhood schedule ones are. That law passed in 1986, and refers injury claims to a special Federal Government ran court system, that pays damages to vaccine injured people with tax money raised from vaccines.
    Injuries from vaccines like flu shots and tetanus shots have to go thru that separate “court” whether adults or children got injured, based on thos shots being on the childhood schedule as well as the adult schedule.
    Zostavax is not reccommended for children, only adults.

  4. Melissa Reply

    I would love to know this too? I’m assuming it’s because this particular vaccine was designed for the older population and not a part of the childhood schedule?

  • Share Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.
  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Contact A Lawyer

Contact A Lawyer

Have A Potential Case Reviewed By An Attorney

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.