A vaccine recipient has filed a lawsuit against the drug company Merck & Co Inc., claiming he developed shingles after Zostavax inoculation.

Plaintiff Robert M. claims that he was inoculated with the Zostavax vaccine, which was supposed to prevent him from developing shingles. He says that instead, he developed shingles after Zostavax because of a defect in the vaccine itself. He aims to hold Merck & Co., the makers of the vaccine, liable for his injury.

Robert says that he received the Zostavax vaccine on or around Feb. 11, 2016, at a Walgreens pharmacy in Florida. He says that he received the vaccine in order to give himself protection against developing shingles and other zoster-related injuries.

He says that he agreed to receive the vaccine because his health care providers told him that it was safe and effective. He says that he also based his decision on literature that he received about the drug that also said the vaccine was safe to use and was effective in preventing shingles.

However, Robert says that he was treated in February 2016 for shingles, after he received the vaccine. He claims that he was diagnosed with shingles and other zoster-related injuries and suffered serious physical and economic damages. He claims that he developed shingles because he was inoculated with Zostavax, and continues and will continue to be injured by the condition he developed because of the vaccine.

Robert claims that the injuries he has sustained because of the vaccine, and that he will continue to sustain include “mental and physical pain and suffering, extensive medical care and treatment for these injuries; significant medical and related expenses because of these injuries…diminished capacity for the enjoyment of life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of premature death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and activation of latent conditions; and other losses and damages.”

Robert aims to hold Merck accountable for his injuries because he claims that the company was negligent in producing and marketing a vaccine that was dangerous and exposed patients to shingles instead of protecting them against it. He also claims that Merck actively concealed information about the vaccine’s dangers — he argues that Merck knew or should have known that the vaccine caused shingles but marketed and sold it nonetheless.

According to the Zostavax vaccine lawsuit, Zostavax contains a live version of the shingles virus, as opposed to a dead version of the virus, which is contained in most vaccines. Allegedly, when a live version of a virus is used in a vaccine, it is weakened, or “attenuated.” However, in the case of the Zostavax vaccine, the virus was not weakened enough.

Robert claims that the virus was “under-attenuated” and that according to research, viruses that are under-attenuated can regain strength after they have entered a patient’s body in inoculation and can cause a patient to become sick with the virus. Allegedly, such was the case in the case of the Zostavax vaccine. Robert argues that Merck knew or should have known that the Zostavax vaccine could regain strength when used in an under-attenuated from, but used it nonetheless.

The Zostavax Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit is Case No. 5:18-cv-00575-JSM-PRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.