The Philadelphia jury deliberating in the first punitive damages trial over the drug Risperdal needs to use its verdict to send pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson a message, an attorney representing a man injured by the medication said Tuesday.

"What happens today will have long-reaching consequences, in Philadelphia, in the nation, and, literally, from this little room in 275 [of Philadelphia City Hall], around the world," Kline & Specter attorney Thomas R. Kline told the jury, which has presided over the trial since mid-September. "We've tried for years, collectively, to change their behavior, but you 12 individuals, as a jury speaking as one, have that power."

The case, Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, marks the first time a Pennsylvania jury has been able to consider awarding punitive damages in a Risperdal case. Although the case initially came to a $1.75 million compensatory damages verdict in 2015, Murray was allowed to proceed to a punitive damages phase after the Pennsylvania Superior Court last year reversed a lower court's ruling that barred recovery on punitive damages claims.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius attorney Ethel Johnson of Houston presented the closing argument on behalf of Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen, which made and sold the drug. In arguing that Nicholas Murray's attorneys failed to meet their burden of proof, she rebutted portions of the testimony from former Food and Drug Administration head David Kessler, who testified on behalf of the plaintiff, and stressed points where the defendant company was in agreement with Kessler.

"I would say there was no showing of malice. No reckless disregard. Nothing to punish. Nothing to deter," Johnson said. "Were there intellectual differences about what the data meant? Yes. Were there differences of opinion as to what the data meant? Yes. But malice? Absolutely not."

However, Johnson did not get to say her entire planned closing, since at least five objections were lodged during her closing argument, most of which were sustained because she was allegedly raising issues of causation. The judge advised several times that causation issues were not a part of the case at that stage.

Several objections were also made during Kline's rebuttal, but most of those objections were overruled.

|

'Measured in Billions'

During his hour-long direct argument and 25-minute rebuttal, Kline repeatedly used the word "billions" to describe not only Johnson & Johnson's net worth, but also the company's revenue forecast for marketing the drug, and the amount the company made from the medication.

"Everything about this case, about this drug, was measured in billions," Kline told the jury.

Kline also stressed evidence that he claimed showed the drugmaker knew there was a strong link between the anti-psychotic drug and a condition known as gynecomastia, which causes boys and young men to develop excessive breast tissue. He further alleged the company purposefully disregarded, and even hid, that information.

Specifically, Kline pointed to a document, known as Table 21, which he contended showed a significant link between Risperdal and gynecomastia. He alleged Johnson & Johnson never turned the document over to the FDA, and omitted it from a 2003 medical article published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Kline further argued that a 2015 Janssen reanalysis of the data underlying that 2003 article, which took Table 21 into account, was done in response to the growing Risperdal litigation.

Janssen has argued that the reanalysis showed that only irrelevant information had been omitted from the 2003 article, but Kline focused on evidence he claimed showed the statistician who conducted the reanalysis was an acquaintance of a company official.

"Is the reanalysis driven by science?" Kline asked. "It was litigation-driven. … It's part of the plan to defend the litigation."

The reanalysis and Table 21 have been a hotly contested pieces of the Risperdal litigation since they were first allowed into evidence in midtrial in 2015. The first case where the issue was raised in both opening statements and closing arguments resulted in a $70 million verdict in 2016.

Related stories: