A federal jury in Illinois awarded an Oregon man $3.2 million in a retrial of a “low testosterone” case that originally netted $150 million.

Monday's verdict includes $200,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The verdict is the fourth in federal court involving a low testosterone gel sold by Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie Inc. that plaintiffs claim has caused heart attacks and blood clots. Plaintiffs won another $140 million verdict last year, while Abbott and AbbVie won a defense verdict in January.

“The juries in both [Jesse] Mitchell trials came back with the same strong and damning message for AbbVie and their conduct relating to the marketing and sales of Androgel,” wrote Trent Miracle, a shareholder at Simmons Hanly Conroy in Alton, Illinois, who is co-lead plaintiffs counsel, in an emailed statement. “It's impossible to view the evidence and listen to the testimony in these cases and not come to the conclusion that AbbVie put their corporate and financial interest ahead of the health and well-being of the men duped into using their product.”

David Bernick of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison represented AbbVie and Abbott in the trial.

“We are disappointed with today's verdict, and we intend to appeal,” said AbbVie spokeswoman Toni Haubert.

About 6,000 lawsuits against several defendants have been coordinated into multidistrict litigation in Illinois. Three companies—GlaxoSmithKline plc, Eli Lilly and Co. and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.—have reached settlements.

The case that led to Monday's verdict began on March 7. It was a retrial of a case brought by Jesse Mitchell, who alleged he suffered a heart attack in 2012 after taking AndroGel for four years. He won a $150 million verdict—the first against Abbott and AbbVie—but U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the the Northern District of Illinois vacated the award as inconsistent in part because it was for only punitive damages.

He originally set a new trial on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim—the only one that the plaintiff won. But on Feb. 24, he amended that order so that all the claims would be retried.

The jury on Monday found for Mitchell on a negligence claim but not on fraudulent misrepresentation or strict liability.