Articles Posted in Jury Verdicts

Published on:

Xarelto Trial Verdict
Today, a jury in Philadelphia awarded approximately 28 million dollars to a woman who suffered serious gastrointestional bleeding after taking the blood-thinning drug Xarelto. It was a huge win for the plaintiff, Lynn Hartman. Ms. Hartman took Xarelto for over a year to treat atrial fibrillation. She suffered internal bleeding and was eventually hospitalized. She needed four blood transfusions. According to court documents, the internal bleeding eventually stopped, and Ms. Hartman was taken off the medication. After she stopped taking Xarelto and switched to another blood-thinner, she had no further internal bleeding.

Ms. Hartman sued Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmceuticals, and parent company Johnson & Johnson. Her primary claim was that the defendants failed to provide adequate warning of the bleeding risks associated with taking Xarelto.

One important witness for the plaintiff at trial was David Kessler, the former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Kessler testified that he believed the warning label on Xarelto was inadequate and lacked important information regarding the specific risks of internal bleeding.

Published on:

Calculating DePuy Pinnacle Jury AwardsIn the last three DePuy Pinnacle artificial hip bellwether trials, three juries awarded the following amounts of money: $502,000,000.00, $1,041,311,648.17, and $247,000,000.00. That’s a total of $1.79 billion dollars. The juries awarded plaintiffs compensatory damages (or actual damages) and punitive damages (to “punish” the defendant companies). Remember that these juries settled on these huge amounts of money based on their findings in three separate trials that DePuy and Johnson & Johnson were liable for design and manufacturing defects, that the defendants failed to warn plaintiffs about the risks of the defective artificial hip, and that defendants acted recklessly, intentionally, and even maliciously in marketing and selling the flawed DePuy Pinnacle hip. These last findings permitted the juries to award punitive damages.

In the bellwether trial in March 2016, a jury awarded more than $500,000,000.00 to five plaintiffs. On December 1, 2016 a jury awarded more than one billion dollars to six plaintiffs and four spouses. And finally, just two weeks ago, a jury awarded six plaintiffs (and four spouses) $247,000,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. Compared to the total awards, the amounts awarded to the spouses of the hip victims were modest, and appear to have totaled around $6,700,000.00.

Let’s do a little math:

Published on:

On November 16, 2017, yet another Texas jury Huge Verdict in Fourth DePuy Pinnacle Trialdelivered a huge verdict to the victims of the DePuy Pinnacle artificial hip. In this fourth bellwether trial, the jury awarded $247,000,000.00 to six plaintiffs and their spouses. According to news reports, after a two-month, hard-fought trial, the jury found that DePuy Orthopaedics and parent company Johnson & Johnson were liable to plaintiffs for the Pinnacle’s design and manufacturing defects. But the jury went further, concluding that the actions of the companies were fraudulent and deceptive, and that they had acted recklessly and maliciously in manufacturing, selling, and promoting the flawed products.

These last terms have special meaning in law: findings of fraud, deception, recklessness, and malice indicate that the companies went beyond mere negligence, that the defendants misbehaved intentionally or with a reckless disregard to the fact that their actions would harm innocent people. Because of these special findings, the plaintiffs were entitled to receive “punitive damages” from DePuy and J&J, which are money damages intended to punish defendants for especially bad behavior.

The jury awarded $90 million dollars in punitive damages to be paid by J&J, and $78 million in punitive damages to be paid by DePuy. That’s $168 million in total punitive damages. It is a lot of money.

Published on:

Last Thursday a jury in Chicago found that AbbVie, Inc., the manufacturers of the testosterone product Androgel, must pay the plaintiff, Jeffrey Konrad, over $140,000,000.00 for injuries he suffered after using the company’s testosterone product. The jury found that AbbVie did not adequately test the testosterone roll-on gel product and misrepresented its safety to patients and doctors.

The Second Testosterone Bellwether Trial

Testosterone MDL in ChicagoMr. Konrad was in his late forties when he began using Androgel in 2010. He was prescribed testosterone to treat a decrease in his testosterone levels. Two months later he suffered a heart attack. He filed suit years later, alleging that AbbVie knew about the link between testosterone use and heart attacks but sold the product anyway, and without sufficient warnings. The jury did not find that Mr. Konrad proved the connection between his use of Androgel and his heart attack. Other factors, such as Mr. Konrad’s obesity, high blood pressure, and family history, could have caused his heart attack. Nevertheless, the jury found that AbbVie was liable for damages based on AbbVie’s negligence and misrepresentation.

Published on:

A woman who lost her case involving injuries from the Depuy ASR metal-on-metal artificial hip has been awarded a new trial.

Strum Depuy ASR TrialIn 2013, a Chicago jury found that Depuy was not responsible for Carol Strum’s injuries following the failure of the ASR hip. The jury found that the hip components manufactured by Depuy Orthopaedics did not cause the injuries to the plaintiff. Ms. Strum had sued DePuy in Chicago in 2011, alleging that the DePuy ASR implanted in January 2008 failed and required painful revision surgery. She also claimed that she suffered from metallosis.

On September 19, 2017, Judge Mary Dooling in Chicago granted Ms. Strum a new trial on the grounds that a surgeon and joint replacement scientist was unfairly prevented from testifying on behalf of the plaintiff in the original trial.

Published on:

Medical device and prescription drug jury verdicts come rapid fire, with a few cases being tried at any given moment across the country. Below is a recap on three recent jury verdicts involving Ethicon pelvic mesh, the blood-thinning drug Xarelto, and the testosterone drug Androgel.

Pelvic Mesh (September 7, 2017)

Pelvic Mesh
Last week a Philadelphia jury awarded a seriously injured woman $57.1 million in damages caused by defective Ethicon TVT pelvic mesh. This was the largest verdict for a pelvic mesh lawsuit against Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (the parent company of Ethicon). The award included $7.1 million in compensatory damages, which encompasses pain and suffering damages, as well as a huge $50 million award for punitive damages.

Published on:

Health Insurance Subrogation
If you are injured by a defective or faulty medical device or medication, you may be able to recover damages from the responsible manufacturer. Depending on the facts of your case, these damages can compensate you for things such as medical bills, pain and suffering and lost wages. In cases where the manufacturer acted in particular nasty ways, such as burying a product study which showed an increased risk of injury, punitive damages may even be possible.

For plaintiffs who are able to obtain a damage award from the responsible medical device or pharmaceutical company, they understand they will not be able to keep every penny received. For example, some of it will go to their attorney (if they have one) and some of it may be subject to taxes. But sometimes, an unexpected “bill” comes from their health insurance company.

Why Do I Have to Pay My Health Insurance Company?

Published on:

On June 12, 2017, a jury in New Orleans reached a verdict in favor of defendants in the second Xarelto bellwether trial. This verdict follows a defense verdict in the first bellwether trial. Let’s take a closer look.

The Second Xarelto Bellwether Trial  

Neoplastin PT Blood Test for Xarelto PatientsTo recap briefly, Xarelto (rivaroxaban) was first approved by the FDA for sale in 2011. As an anticoagulant, it was supposed to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), strokes, and other serious conditions. And it was easier to take than warfarin. In studies, however, Xarelto caused a higher rate of complications from internal bleeding; but unlike other anticoagulant drugs, there is no “antidote” for stopping internal bleeding in patients. People bleed and often can’t stop bleeding.

Published on:

Jury Verdict in First Xarelto Bellwether Trial

More than 18,000 lawsuits have been filed against the drug manufacturers of Xarelto over internal bleeding injuries. Two weeks ago the first bellwether case in the Xarelto multidistrict litigation was tried to a jury in Louisiana. On May 3, 2017, that jury rendered a verdict in favor of Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and parent company Johnson & Johnson. After a seven day trial, the jury found in favor of defendants on one narrow issue: that the plaintiff did not prove his claim that the drug makers failed to give adequate instructions to the physician on the safe use of Xarelto; specifically, the plaintiff argued that drug makers failed to give instructions to doctors about the need to perform a blood-clotting test on Xarelto patients before prescribing the drug.

Although a setback for the plaintiffs, this narrow decision makes me confident there is “plenty of game left” in the overall Xarelto litigation. I do not believe the Boudreaux case adequately represents so many of the remaining claims against Bayer, Janssen, and J&J.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Depuy Pinnacle AppealNow it’s the plaintiffs’ turn. The five victims of the Depuy Pinnacle artificial hip have answered the appeal of Depuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And as they did at trial, the plaintiffs have come out fighting.

Recap of Depuy’s Appeal

A few weeks ago I wrote about the appeal brought by Depuy and Johnson & Johnson after a Texas jury awarded $502 million dollars to five plaintiffs. You can read about the Defendants’ appeal here. But to recap, Depuy and J&J argue that they were unfairly prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ team aggressive tactics at trial. They argue that Defendants are entitled to a new trial because the plaintiffs’ team had “a strategy” to “inflame the jury through highly prejudicial evidence and wholly inappropriate argument.”