In an action against Merck, the manufacturer and marketer of Vioxx, seeking recovery for the difference in price between what the plaintiffs paid and what they would have paid for a safer, equally effective, pain reliever, trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class action is affirmed as the decision is consistent with Tobacco II and is supported by substantial evidence where: 1) trial court did not err in concluding the individual plaintiffs’ claims were not typical of the claims of the TPPs; 2) the trial court did not err in concluding that a generic version of the drug was not a valid comparator on a class-wide basis; and 3) because the trial court concluded, on the evidence, that the issue of a proper comparator was a patient-specific issue, incorporating the patient’s medical history, treatment needs, and drug interactions, it properly concluded that restitution could not be calculated on a class-wide basis....