The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the judgment involving a Risperdal lawsuit approved by the South Carolina Supreme Court against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, totaling $124 million.

The Risperdal lawsuit alleged that Janssen used deceptive marketing tactics to promote their drug.

Janssen argued that the verdict against it (along with the hefty penalty) should be found unconstitutional, claiming lack of evidence of any injury from their Risperdal marketing tactics.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, the company said that “the South Carolina Supreme Court readily acknowledged that Janssen’s conduct ‘likely had little impact on the community of prescribing physicians’ because the risks associated with atypical antipsychotics were ‘well known.’”

A spokesperson for the South Carolina Supreme Court applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore the company’s petition, saying that their original decision was a “fair and reasonable penalty against Janssen Pharmaceuticals.”

The spokesperson went on to say that this is a “landmark case,” establishing “important guidelines for the future by imposing a penalty of well over $100 million under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.”

This Risperdal lawsuit has been in the process for several years. It was first filed in 2007 by the state of South Carolina, alleging that Janssen hid Risperdal risks on its labels and claiming that Risperdal was safer than other similar antipsychotic medications. These practices, the Risperdal lawsuit claimed, were unfair and deceptive in practice, and were used to boost Risperdal sales rather than protect the public.

Other states have also sued Janssen over the drug, including Louisiana and West Virginia. These lawsuits were likely prompted by a 2003 order from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Janssen to revise Risperdal prescribing information to include a diabetes warning.

Before the South Carolina Risperdal verdict, other states settled for significantly less. For instance, Arkansas settled for only $7.75 million. However, the South Carolina court refused to use these previous Risperdal settlements to sway their own verdict.

“We decline to rely on average settlements as dispositive, especially when we are constrained by an abuse of discretion standard of review,” said the State Justices.

At one point, the court did adjust their penalties to the tune of around $12 million. This was because, prior to that point, it had been supplied the wrong number of drug samples sent to physicians between 2004 and 2007. The initial decision accounted for $100 per box sample and claimed 345,454 had been sent, but this number was later revised to $228,447, dropping the penalty.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the company’s petition, a Janssen spokesperson has responded.

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal. Risperdal is a safe and effective medicine that has helped and is still helping millions of patients with debilitating mental illnesses and neurodevelopmental conditions as part of a comprehensive treatment plan.”

Risperdal Lawsuits

Risperdal is an antipsychotic medication used to treat various mood disorders including Bipolar and may also be prescribed to treat certain autism spectrum disorders.  However, the drug has been linked to several dangerous side effects, most notably the development of male breasts or gynecomastia.

Many Risperdal users have taken legal action against Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals for failing to provide adequate warnings regarding Risperdal side effects, putting profits before patient safety.

If you or someone you know was negatively impacted by Risperdal side effects, you may be able to file a Risperdal lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for failure to adequately warn about the potential side effects of the drug.