- Fourth Carcinogen DMF Found in Blood-Pressure Pill Valsartan - Bloomberg
- Chinese Heart Drug Valsartan Recall Shows FDA Inspection Limits - Bloomberg
- J&J knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
- Pennsylvania Xarelto Bleeding Lawsuit Trials Begin Next Month
- Editorial: Fighting back against Big Pain, without much help from Congress | Editorial | stltoday.com
- Pennsylvania’s First Xarelto Lawsuit Trial Concludes With $28 Million Verdict for Plaintiff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports | Life Pulse Health
- California Woman Files Celect® IVC Filter Lawsuit – Daily Hornet | Breaking News That Stings!
- Wright Medical Pays $90 Million to Settle Remaining Hip Lawsuits
- Filings Fly as Xarelto Mass Tort Prepares for Trial | Law.com
- Father blames NuvaRing manufacturers for daughter's death | St. Louis Record
Risperdal Plaintiffs Gain Leverage in Wake of $70M Verdict
The $70 million verdict a Philadelphia jury levied against Janssen Pharmaceuticals on July 1 may not survive challenges that it is excessive, but the award was a definitive win for the plaintiffs in the Risperdal mass tort litigation, attorneys who work in the pharmaceutical arena said.
A Philadelphia jury July 1 returned the award against Janssen and in favor of a boy who claimed the antipsychotic drug, Risperdal, led to excess growth of breast tissue. The plaintiffs in A.Y. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals had argued that the company knew the medication caused the condition, but failed to properly inform the medical community, emphasizing potential profits for the drug over its safety.
Attorney Jason Itkin from the Houston-based firm Arnold & Itkin tried the case for the plaintiffs, and Drinker Biddle & Reath attorney David Abernethy tried the case for Janssen.
The award, according to Duane Morris attorney Alan Klein, who often represents generic-drug companies, was a "quantum leap" in the litigation, as the previous highest verdict in the Risperdal mass tort had been a $2.5 million award.
Mass torts attorney Max Kennerly of Kennerly Loutey, who represents plaintiffs, agreed that the verdict was an "obvious" win for the plaintiffs, and said it put much of the leverage in the plaintiffs' hands. He noted the verdict was the fifth time a jury found the company negligently failed to warn about the drug, and said the latest verdict indicates the potential for the damages as well.
"It seems that as this moves forward, the liability proof and the causation proof are just getting stronger and stronger," Kennerly said. "I don't see much of an upside for the defendants."
However, attorneys noted that an appeal is coming, and several questioned whether the full amount will survive a remittitur challenge.
Although attorneys agreed it is impossible to predict how a court may rule on an issue, one attorney noted that in the case Polett v. Public Communications, the state Superior Court recently struck down as excessive a $27.6 million verdict over a knee implant.
"I'd rather be the appellee than appellant ... but I don't see how they can substantiate a verdict for those damages," Cozen O'Connor products liability attorney James Heller said.
Kennerly agreed, but added that, even if the verdict is reduced, it could still be very significant.
"The number is huge. It's difficult to see such a number surviving intact through an appeal," Kennerly said. "That said, the jury has very wide latitude to determine the extent of damages and to assess them appropriately."
Klein, who represents both plaintiffs and defendants in products liability cases, said that, although the plaintiffs are sympathetic, the size of the verdict showed the jury was angry.
The plaintiffs in the Risperdal mass tort all took the medication to help control mental health issues, including symptoms related to autism, Tourette syndrome and, in the latest case, violent oppositional behavior. Klein observed the injuries are not life threatening or a major impairment of life activities. He surmised that the size of the verdict was intended to signal to the drugmaker the jurors' disapproval of the company's conduct.
"It leaves me to suspect the jury was very unhappy at the defendant," Klein said. "Something that came out at the trial set the jury off significantly."
Source: The Legal Intelligencer
- June 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- August 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014