Supreme Court Won't Review $2.5M Risperdal Verdict
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to hear a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary's appeal in the first Risperdal lawsuit in Philadelphia to result in a plaintiff's verdict.
August 05, 2019 at 02:39 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that was hit with a $2.5 million verdict over the drug Risperdal’s association with gynecomastia.
The state’s justices denied allocatur in Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals on Aug. 2.
The Pledger case was the first Risperdal lawsuit in Philadelphia to result in a plaintiff’s verdict.
The plaintiff, Austin Pledger, was represented on appeal by Kline & Specter. Firm co-founder Tom Kline said in an email Monday, “With the compensatory jury verdict affirmed with finality, we look forward to a punitive damages trial on behalf of an autistic child who was terribly injured by the misconduct of Johnson and Johnson.”
Of the court’s decision, a Janssen spokesman said only, “We are aware of the ruling.”
Previously, the state Superior Court upheld the $2.5 million verdict and sent the case back for the trial court to consider whether the plaintiffs should be able to proceed with punitive damages claims.
As part of its effort to overturn the verdict, Janssen focused much of its argument on the plaintiff’s experts, specifically contending that the lower court should have granted a mistrial after the plaintiffs sought to change experts midtrial.
According to Superior Court Judge Eugene Strassburger’s October 2018 opinion, the plaintiff’s first expert, a pediatrician and endocrinologist from Missouri, had examined Pledger in Alabama, and plaintiffs counsel initially sought to introduce the doctor’s testimony through a videotaped deposition. However, Janssen contended that, since the doctor was not licensed in Alabama, his examination of Pledger violated Alabama law. After Janssen’s motion, the doctor told the plaintiffs he was no longer willing to testify, so the plaintiffs had another doctor—the doctor who later testified at trial—examine Pledger.
Although Janssen called for a mistrial based on the switch, the trial judge rejected the drugmaker’s arguments, saying its accusation about the doctor was “extraordinary and seemed calculated for maximum surprise.”
Strassbuger agreed.
“Moreover, we conclude the relief granted by the trial court was appropriate under the circumstances,” Strassburger said.
After a monthlong trial, the jury in Pledger found that Janssen failed to warn of the potential for Risperdal to cause gynecomastia, a condition in which males grow enlarged breasts. Pledger, a 20-year-old from Alabama, took Risperdal, which is an antipsychotic, to assist with behavioral symptoms related to autism. The suit claimed the drug caused him to grow large breasts, beginning when he was 8 years old, and that—barring a mastectomy—the condition is permanent.
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 All3rd Circuit Revives Class Action Against Bayer Over Benzene-Contaminated Products
4 minute readLife Sciences M&A Set to Boom, Litigation to Remain Steady Under New Trump Admin
5 minute readOzempic Plaintiffs Push for Marketing Discovery After MDL Judge Imposes Limits
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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