In re Risperdal (Saksek v. Janssen and Winter v. Janssen)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania finds that trial court and intermediate appellate court erred in setting an accrual date for purpose of evaluating timeliness of plaintiffs’ claims.

The plaintiffs were among thousands to sue Janssen Pharmaceuticals, claiming they developed gynecomastia (enlarged breasts in men) as a result of taking the prescription drug Risperdal. The trial court ruled both claims were time-barred, entered summary judgment, and the Superior Court affirmed. In doing so, the Superior Court accepted Janssen’s argument that all claims involving Risperdal accrued as of October 31, 2006, which coincided with an update to Risperdal’s label warning of gynecomastia as a potential side effect. The court’s ruling prompted a blanket dismissal of thousands of Risperdal cases.

Now, in a 6-1 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has revived the claims. The court vacated the award of summary judgment, reasoning that issues of material fact remain with respect to Janssen’s statute of limitations defense. Specifically, the court concluded that the question of when the plaintiffs were on notice of a potential connection between their disorder and Risperdal is a question of fact and must be left to the jury.

The court’s opinion resurrected thousands of claims and will likely trigger others given that it essentially nullifies the statute of limitations as a threshold (pre-trial) defense.

 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.