223 A.3d 633
Pa.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Jonathan Saksek and Joshua Winter are men who allege they developed gynecomastia from taking Risperdal (risperidone) as children; both stopped the drug years before filing suit.
- Janssen changed the Risperdal label on October 31, 2006 to report elevated prolactin and trial data noting gynecomastia incidence; plaintiffs allege they were not warned by doctors and were unaware of the term “gynecomastia.”
- Janssen filed global and case-specific summary judgment motions arguing all Risperdal-gynecomastia claims accrued no later than Oct. 31, 2006 (label change).
- The trial court granted summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds using a June 30, 2009 accrual date based on cumulative medical literature, media reports, and lawyer advertising; the Superior Court instead fixed accrual at Oct. 31, 2006 and affirmed.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed: it held the certified record was undeveloped (no medical records, treating-physician testimony, or photographs) and that discovery-rule determinations are fact-intensive and typically for a jury, so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oct. 31, 2006 label change put plaintiffs on inquiry/constructive notice so limitations began then | Plaintiffs: they lacked medical knowledge, thought enlargement was weight gain, had no reason to know or obtain label updates, so discovery rule tolled limitations | Janssen: label disclosed association; reasonable diligence would have revealed the link by 10/31/2006; objective standard bars suits filed much later | Court: disputed facts (no evidence plaintiffs saw/understood label or were told by doctors). Summary judgment on 2006 accrual improper; jury must decide. |
| Whether cumulative publicity (medical articles, news, lawyer ad) fixed accrual no later than June 30, 2009 | Plaintiffs: they lacked access/knowledge; articles and broadcasts were not shown to have been available or understandable to them; cumulative publicity does not, as a matter of law, establish notice | Janssen/trial court: combined medical literature, media coverage, and a June 25, 2009 lawyer video would have awakened inquiry by 6/30/2009 | Court: publicity here was materially different and less pervasive than high-profile drug cases; record does not establish plaintiffs had access/understanding — factual issues remain for a jury. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on statute-of-limitations given state of the record | Plaintiffs: motions were premature; discovery was necessary (medical records, physicians' testimony, photos) to evaluate reasonable diligence | Janssen: sought global resolution to avoid mass litigation; summary judgment appropriate because objective inquiry-notice standard favors accrual dates it proposed | Court: summary judgment was premature because material facts are disputed and discovery was lacking; deny SJ and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (summary-judgment and discovery-rule principles)
- Wilson v. El‑Daief, 964 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2009) (discovery rule tolling until plaintiff, by reasonable diligence, could discover injury and cause)
- Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 15 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2011) (objective reasonable-diligence standard; fact questions usually for jury)
- Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 A.3d 880 (Pa. 2018) (inquiry notice requires knowledge of significant harm and a factual cause linked to another’s conduct)
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2002) (summary judgment standard)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (view facts and inferences in favor of non-moving party)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (summary judgment appropriate only where no genuine issue of material fact)
- In re Vioxx Products Liab. Litig., 522 F.Supp.2d 799 (E.D. La. 2007) (example of publicity-driven accrual determination in high-profile drug withdrawal)
- Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012) (question whether a plaintiff’s consultation with a physician about a symptom can trigger inquiry notice)
- Stange v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 179 A.3d 45 (Pa. Super. 2018) (recognition that risperidone can cause hyperprolactinemia)