After winning a major $1.75 million verdict on behalf of our client against Johnson & Johnson’s pharmaceutical subsidiary, Janssen, the litigation scales may start to tip in favor of plaintiffs.
"The ball is in Janssen's court," Jason Itkin said in an article by The Legal Intelligencer.
On Monday, a Philadelphia jury awarded our client the latest verdict in a string of cases against Johnson & Johnson involving their drug Risperdal. A few months earlier, another jury awarded a plaintiff $2.5 million in a similar Risperdal. While this seemed to be the start of a positive trend for plaintiffs, a month after that victory, another jury ruled on the side of the defense due to lack of evidence in the next case.
Strengthening Plaintiffs’ Stance With Latest Win
Arnold & Itkin’s recent verdict has given Risperdal victims new resolve. With several appeals pending, another case currently being argued in trial, and 10 more waiting to hit the courts in early 2016, the next move by Janssen and J&J will be a crucial one. Thanks to the legal work of our firm, the pressure is on for the major pharmaceutical company.
Though not “bellwether cases,” the victory does demonstrate that Risperdal can be successfully connected to the cause of abnormal breast growth.
The Pivotal Role of Causation in Risperdal Cases
As Attorneys Jason and Cory Itkin know, causation is one of the major key points in these Risperdal cases. To be successful in litigation against J&J, it must be proven that the drug specifically caused gynecomastia (abnormal breast growth). Without proper proof to back this claim up, juries cannot rule in a plaintiff’s favor—even if it appears to be obvious that the drug was responsible. Further, proving that a failure to warn on J&J’s part led to doctors unknowingly prescribing the drug to young boys is also crucial to a case.
Not only did J&J know about the risk of gynecomastia, they also kept quiet about studies that showed the risk rates were much higher than the low numbers they were claiming. While J&J now says the average studies didn’t reveal such high numbers, the issue has led to them facing serious legal heat.
In the case of our client, he began taking the drug several years prior to 2006, when the drug’s label was amended to include more information regarding the risks gynecomastia. Even still, the new labels do not necessarily adequately reflect the seriousness of this medical complication.
Janssen Continues to Try Cases Despite Recent Jury Verdict
According to a spokeswoman for Janssen, they plan to continue trying cases, sticking to the stance that they did nothing wrong and provided patients adequate warnings. With the surge of momentum from our firm’s recent victory, Janssen may face more jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs than they are able to handle.
For now, plaintiffs must continue to get their cases ready for trial. That is exactly what Attorney Jason Itkin plans to do. "As of now, we're just preparing for trials," he commented, staying true to the firm’s commitment to approach every case as if it were going to be tried in court.