Opening Statements in Risperdal Punitive Damages Trial Focuses on Alleged Push for Off-Label Use
The case marks the first time a Pennsylvania jury has been able to consider awarding punitive damages in a Risperdal case.
September 17, 2019 at 03:15 PM
4 minute read
An attorney representing a man injured by the antipsychotic medication Risperdal painted the drugmaker Johnson & Johnson as a malicious company that pushed for the drug's off-label use in children despite evidence linking the drug to excessive growth of breast tissue in boys and young men all in an effort to maximize profits over the safety of children.
"They have a target. They know who they want to make money from: kids. And not just any kids. Kids who are the most vulnerable in our society. Kids with autism and Asperger's and ADD," Houston lawyer Jason Itkin of Arnold & Itkin told the Philadelphia jury Tuesday morning.
Itkin made the comments during the opening statement for the punitive damages phase of the case Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The case marks the first time a Pennsylvania jury has been able to consider awarding punitive damages in a Risperdal case.
The lawyer for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, however, offered a contrasting view of the company, saying drug developers were in frequent contact with regulators and medical professionals, and that allegations over the company's conduct misrepresents the facts and second-guesses difficult decisions.
"It is easier to criticize than it is to create," Morgan, Lewis & Bockius attorney Ethel Johnson of Houston said. "Once you're heard all the evidence [you will see] that Janssen has not engaged in any conduct that's evil or with malice."
The punitive damages trial began nearly four years after another Philadelphia jury awarded the plaintiff, Nicholas Murray, $1.75 million over claims that Janssen Pharmaceuticals failed to adequately warn about the link between Risperdal and gynecomastia, a condition in which boys grow excessive breast tissue.
In early 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a Philadelphia judge's ruling that had barred Risperdal plaintiffs from seeking punitive damages in the litigation. The Superior Court panel, however, had determined that, instead of globally applying New Jersey law, which prohibits punitive damages, to the mass tort litigation, each plaintiff could apply the law of their home state on the punitive damages issue.
The ruling substantially raised the stakes for the mass tort, which has nearly 7,000 cases pending in Philadelphia and has seen several multimillion-dollar verdicts, including one that totaled $70 million.
And the tension was clear Tuesday, as plaintiffs counsel objected numerous times during Janssen's opening statement and the drug company moved for a mistrial once the opening statements were over.
In moving for a mistrial, New York attorney John Winter of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, who is also representing the drugmakers, cited allegedly incorrect comments Itkin made about J&J's net worth and a supposed plan to make $3.3 billion selling Risperdal, as well as an allegation that J&J's CEO, Alex Gorsky, had been promoted to his current position due to his work selling Risperdal.
"There will never be any evidence in this case to support that assertion," Winter said about Gorsky. "It was done to inflame bias and ill will towards my client."
Objections made by plaintiffs' counsel, Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, during Johnson's opening statement targeted references the attorney made to Murray, including her statements that the company had no malice or evil intent toward Murray or any other boy who took Risperdal. Kline argued the punitive damages trial was not about Murray, and the issues involving his specific claims had previously been litigated in the 2015 liability trial.
Judge Kenneth Powell, who is overseeing the punitive damages trial, sustained plaintiffs' counsel's objections, but denied the motion for mistrial, saying the defendants will have ample opportunity at trial to present evidence contradicting the allegedly incorrect statements.
"It's not evidence," Powell said of the opening statement. "The jury has been advised of that by me and will be [advised] again."
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
- 1California Implements New Law Banning Medical Debt From Credit Reports
- 2Trump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers For Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
- 3Climate Groups Demonstrate Outside A&O Shearman and Akin Offices
- 4Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: It's Bonus Time
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