Houston Car Accident Lawyers
The consolidation of Risperdal breast growth cases has now encountered a time limit that could have implications for thousands of different lawsuits that have all been consolidated in Philadelphia against Johnson & Johnson.
Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed that in the Risperdal breast growth lawsuits, there must be consideration of when the clock did begin to run on claims of atypical breast growth.
Risperdal breast growth, according to numerous lawsuits filed on this issue, might only be reversed when users discontinue using the medication and get surgery.
The development of breasts for young men and boys who say they were not forewarned about the possibility leads to physical side effects as well as the emotional trauma tied in to this condition.
If a patient notices breast growth, the next step is usually informing the prescribing physician. Many cases claim that the connection between use of the drug and breast development is strong.
Those adolescent boys who received the antipsychotic medication Risperdal might have noticed sudden and unexpected development of breast growth.
Risperdal breast growth was reported by young men and boys who took this medication and alleged that they were never told about the risks and possible side effects.
A recent trial judge’s conclusion that updated labeling from the manufacturer was not enough to begin the clock on the statute of limitations.
Then a ruling came from an intermediate appeals court which determined that two plaintiffs in the mass tort Philadelphia county program should have known they were injured.
This program includes nearly 7,000 cases of alleged Risperdal breast growth should have known about the connection between the powerful drug and abnormal breast growth when the medication’s label was updated in October 2006.
The labeling on the medication was updated to that point to reflect the higher chances of suffering from this side effect.
The 2015 ruling came about as a result of a patient who says that Risperdal breast growth, also known as gynecomastia, was never fully disclosed to him.
Allegedly, the patient began to notice this side effect in 1998. Although the trial judge said that the 2006 label update was not enough to put the user on notice about the potential connection, the trial judge did determine that media coverage and medical studies throughout the 2000s should have led to him discovering the connection at least by June 30, 2009.
Therefore, the judge applied similar logic for a summary judgement in a case filed in February 2014 by a different Risperdal breast growth plaintiff.
The two cases were consolidated for appeal in front of the state superior court and the trial judge said that the final decision would have the same reasoning applied across all of the Risperdal mass tort programs, which might ultimately dismiss hundreds of pending cases.
The Risperdal Breast Growth Lawsuits are Case No. 22 EAP 2018 and 23 EAP 2018, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
If you or someone you know has been injured as a result of taking Risperdal, consult with the experienced attorneys at McDonald Worley to figure out what to do next.
Disclaimer: McDonald Worley is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.