Pa. Appeals Court Sends Back Risperdal Case for Look at Punitive Damages
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has sent a Risperdal case that initially came to a $1.75 million verdict back to the trial court to determine whether there should be a new trial on punitive damages.
February 21, 2018 at 01:38 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has sent a Risperdal case that initially came to a $1.75 million verdict back to the trial court to determine whether there should be a new trial on punitive damages.
A three-judge Superior Court panel on Tuesday issued its ruling in Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which was the third case to go to trial from the Risperdal mass tort program in Philadelphia. The case had initially come to a $1.75 million verdict, which was later reduced by the trial court to $680,000.
The unanimous panel rejected defendant Janssen Pharmaceutical's attempt to overturn the verdict and affirmed the trial judge's decision to cap the jury award based on a Maryland law that caps noneconomic damages.
However, citing its decision in a case last month that opened the doors for Risperdal plaintiffs to seek recovery of punitive damages, Judge John Bender remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff Nicholas Murray, a Maryland resident, should be allowed to seek punitive damages in the case.
“Because the trial court previously concluded that New Jersey law should apply to the punitive damages issue for all Risperdal plaintiffs regardless of case-specific facts, we remand this matter so that Mr. Murray may create an individual record pertaining to the distinct conflict-of-law principles at play in his particular case,” Bender said. “Because a true conflict exists, the trial court must determine whether the substantive law of New Jersey or Maryland applies.”
The first case in which the Superior Court determined that plaintiffs should be allowed to seek punitive damages was Stange v. Janssen, which the court decided in mid-January.
The Stange court held that, when it comes to the question of whether they should be allowed to seek punitive damages at trial, plaintiffs could seek to have the law of their home state apply to their case. The ruling reversed a decision that had applied New Jersey law to the Risperdal litigation globally. The Garden State's products liability law specifically prohibits punitive damages.
According to Bender, Maryland law allows punitive damages “in an attempt to punish a defendant whose conduct is characterized by evil motive, intent to injure, or fraud, and to warn others contemplating similar conduct of the serious risk of monetary liability.”
Neither Murray nor Janssen disputed that Maryland law allows for punitive damages in pharmaceutical products liability cases, but the parties did dispute whether Maryland or New Jersey law should apply.
Murray, according to Bender, contended that Maryland law applies because he was prescribed Risperdal in Maryland, and Janssen's communications and sales representatives also communicated numerous times with his treating physicians in the Old Line State.
Janssen, however, countered that Murray's punitive damages claims hinge on allegations that the company misled federal regulators, consultants, physicians and the public—all of which is alleged to have happened in New Jersey.
An emailed statement from Kline & Specter attorneys Thomas R. Kline and Charles “Chip” Becker, who are representing Murray and are leading attorneys in the Risperdal litigation, said, “The Murray decision ratifies the sufficiency of the evidence concerning Janssen's negligence and liability in Risperdal litigation.”
“It also confirms the need for punitive damages to be assessed on a case-by-case basis,” the attorneys said in the statement. “The decision represents a significant step forward in the effort to achieve justice for thousands of Risperdal claimants.”
A spokeswoman for Janssen, Kelsey Buckholtz, said in an emailed statement that the company was pleased that the Superior Court agreed with the decision to reduce the $1.75 million award.
“At the same time, we are disappointed that the court allowed the verdict to stand and will consider our options going forward,” she said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 2Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 3People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 4How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 5Bar Report - Dec. 23
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250