Murray, N. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
180 A.3d 1235
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Nicholas Murray (Maryland resident) sued Janssen (manufacturer of Risperdal) in Philadelphia, alleging Risperdal caused his gynecomastia and that Janssen negligently failed to warn clinicians.
- Murray took Risperdal from 2003–2008 (off‑label for pediatrics until 2006); jury found for Murray on negligence and causation and awarded $1,750,000 for permanent deformity and humiliation.
- Janssen moved for JNOV/remittitur; the trial court denied JNOV, denied plaintiff’s delay damages, but reduced the verdict to $680,000 by applying Maryland’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages.
- Janssen and Murray both appealed: Janssen challenged sufficiency of causation evidence; Murray cross‑appealed the trial court’s global summary judgment barring punitive damages (applying New Jersey law) and the application of Maryland’s damages cap.
- The Superior Court affirmed liability/causation and the application of Maryland’s noneconomic damages cap, but reversed the global punitive‑damages ruling and remanded for individualized choice‑of‑law fact development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murray) | Defendant's Argument (Janssen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of causation evidence | Expert (Dr. DeLuca) and records (photos, mammogram, school/pharmacy records, mother’s testimony) establish Risperdal caused gynecomastia | Evidence inadequate: no treating physician diagnosed gynecomastia contemporaneously; expert relied on late exam/photos and didn’t exclude pubertal gynecomastia | Affirmed: viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, expert testimony and diagnostic evidence supported causation; JNOV denied |
| Admissibility/weight of mother’s retrospective testimony and photographs | Testimony and photos corroborate onset during drug use and supported expert opinion | Testimony is self‑serving, uncorroborated, and too speculative to back‑date onset | Rejected defendant’s credibility attack; credibility for jury to decide; evidence sufficient |
| Punitive damages — global summary judgment applying NJ law (NJPLA) to all Risperdal plaintiffs | Trial court prematurely applied NJ law globally; choice‑of‑law requires individualized analysis; Maryland law might permit punitive damages here | New Jersey has strongest interest (Janssen headquartered there); NJPLA bars punitive damages for FDA‑approved drugs | Reversed in part: global grant of summary judgment on punitive damages vacated; remanded so plaintiff can develop an individual choice‑of‑law record to determine whether NJ or plaintiff’s home state law governs |
| Application of Maryland noneconomic damages cap (molding/remittitur) | Reducing the verdict is procedural (forum law applies) and Pennsylvania should govern; alternatively Maryland’s policy (insurance crisis) doesn’t apply to Janssen | Maryland substantive statutory cap applies because injury and contacts are in Maryland | Affirmed: court treated the reduction as application of Maryland substantive law (statutory cap) and correctly applied Maryland cap to limit award to $680,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrozza v. Greenbaum, 866 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for appellate review of JNOV and deference to jury on credibility)
- Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 203 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1964) (governing choice‑of‑law analysis—governmental interest / Restatement approach)
- Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 156 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2017) (summary judgment standard and de novo review of legal questions)
- Stange (discussed in opinion as controlling framework) — decision relied on Restatement/Griffith approach for individualized choice‑of‑law development (cited in opinion)
- Beall v. Holloway‑Johnson, 130 A.3d 406 (Md. 2016) (Maryland standard for punitive damages requiring malicious or egregious conduct)
- Erie Ins. Exchange v. Heffernan, 925 A.2d 636 (Md. 2007) (Maryland characterizes its noneconomic damages cap as substantive law)
- Kendall v. Hoffman‑La Roche, Inc., 36 A.3d 542 (N.J. 2012) (NJ legislative purpose for NJPLA and limits on punitive damages for FDA‑approved drugs)
- Cipolla v. Shaposka, 267 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1970) (analysis of true conflict and interest‑weighing in tort choice‑of‑law)
- Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District, 104 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2014) (remittitur standard and trial court discretion over excess verdicts)