Skip to main content

A 2015 Risperdal Defense Verdict Reversed

A 2015 Risperdal Defense Verdict Reversed

A 2015 Risperdal Defense Verdict Reversed

Introduction

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a 2015 defense verdict awarded to Janssen Pharmaceuticals by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on account of insufficient evidence that Risperdal was the cause of the plaintiff's breast growth. However, the jury did find that the drug maker illegally marketed the drug since it was only approved by the FDA for use in adults and the plaintiff was only 6 at the time when he was prescribed this drug. The Court has also ordered a new trial to be limited to the issues of causation and damages.

No class action has been established yet for Risperdal cases. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas has more than 5,500 Risperdal cases filed, which have been centralized under Complex Litigation Center (CLC) for management before a single judge, given the common issues of law and fact that apply to all Risperdal lawsuits across Pennsylvania. J&J was expecting this rise when it canceled the tolling agreements for thousands of cases.

Formation of a multi-district litigation for federally-filed cases may result if a future need arises. No class action filings have been made so far. Thousands of cases are filed in the state courts of California, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and other courts across the country. Janssen has settled several Risperdal cases in the days leading up to their scheduled jury trials. In 2013, the company agreed to pay more than $1.39 billion as a part of a settlement agreement resolving claims that it illegally marketed Risperdal for use in children, among other allegations. Allegations include unlawful marketing, failing to warn about gynecomastia links and higher risks of gynecomastia as compared to other similar drugs, false promotion, and insufficient warnings.

The Pennsylvania litigation has convened eight Risperdal gynecomastia trials since February 2015. Several Risperdal lawsuits have been settled by the drug maker, both before and during trials for an undisclosed amount. The defendant settled the cases without admitting any wrongdoing and continues to deny liability for the related injuries.

Comments

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.

Latest News

NC to Get $150M to Boost Opioid Treatment, Recovery

Categories: Opioids

North Carolina will receive an additional $150 million from Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family as part of a national $7.4 billion settlement related to the opioid

SRI Gets FDA OK for High-Dose Naloxone Trial

Categories: Opioids

SRI has received authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to begin Phase 1 clinical trials of a new, high-dose injectable naloxone formulation.

The approval was granted under an Investigational New Drug (IND)…

Spokane County to Get $5M in New Opioid Settlement

Categories: Opioids

Jurisdictions within Spokane County are set to receive nearly $4.7 million as part of a sweeping $7.4 billion nationwide settlement with Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family.

The agreement addresses the company’s role in fueling…

✍️ FREE—3000 Pages Medical Record Review Trial!                
No Contract. No Risk—Fully Customized, Free!

Only 10 Firms Accepted—Offer Ends June 30!