The nearly $28 million verdict awarded last month in the first Xarelto case to be tried in state court has been reversed.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos on Tuesday granted the defense's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which eliminates the $27.8 million award a jury handed up Dec. 5. The award was the first win for plaintiffs in the Xarelto litigation after four consecutive losses in federal court.

According to a transcript of the proceedings, Erdos based his decision on the testimony of plaintiff Lynn Hartman's prescribing doctor, focusing on whether the plaintiffs established that the doctor would have still prescribed Xarelto if Hartman had taken a PT, or prothrombin test, to assesses coagulation levels in a person's blood, which is a test plaintiffs contended should have been required.

Hartman's counsel had argued that the prescribing doctor, Dr. Josephine Randazzo, would have told Hartman about the increased risks if she had performed the test and Hartman would have then refused to take the medication. However, Erdos said that argument was based on speculation.

“I think it is speculative to say that based on [the PT test] she would have communicated the increased risks with respect to the other issues, particularly in light of her answers about not discussing percentages generally,” Erdos said. “In fact she would not even concede that the tone and demeanor of the conversation would have been any different. She was never asked specifically if she would have communicated the new information to Mrs. Hartman as opposed to just generally.”

Randazzo's testimony was not live before the jury, but rather had been videotaped and played for the jury. The testimony has been a point of contention throughout the litigation, and following the verdict, several court watchers said the issue was one the defendants were likely to focus on. However, defense motions based on Randazzo's videotaped testimony had also previously been denied on several occasions, including in a motion for summary judgment that Philadelphia Judge Arnold New denied in October and as part of the defendants' motion for compulsory nonsuit at the end of the plaintiff's case.

In an emailed statement a spokeswoman for Janssen said the company was pleased that the court reversed the verdict.

“Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the patients using our medicines,” spokeswoman Sarah Freeman said.

A spokesman for Bayer said the company was also pleased with the ruling.

“Today's ruling and the defense verdicts in the first three federal court trials support both the safety and efficacy of Xarelto and that its [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]-approved label contains accurate, science-based information on the benefits and risks of this life-saving medicine,” spokesman Chris Loder said in an emailed statement.

In an emailed statement Levin Sedran & Berman attorney Michael Weinkowitz, who is co-liaison counsel for the plaintiffs, said the court also determined there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's multimillion-dollar punitive damages award, which, he said, has implications for the 1,600 cases pending in Philadelphia's Xarelto mass tort program.

“This ruling regarding the defendants' wrongful conduct—which resulted in the jury awarding $26 million in punitive damages—has far broader implications for the Xarelto litigation as a whole,” he said. “We look forward to trying the next series of cases in Philadelphia.”

The ruling Tuesday adds one more wrinkle to the already contentious litigation, which has seen disputes arise over allegedly unsavory tactics involving a witness, improper comments during closing arguments, and social media posts that eventually resulted in two attorneys being punished for the conduct on Tuesday.