A man who won a $1.75 million Risperdal jury verdict is now facing two different state laws that have put caps on what he can actually recover from that award.

Plaintiff Nicholas M. won this Risperdal jury verdict after his attorneys convinced a jury that he grew female breasts and suffered from gynecomastia as a result of taking a Johnson & Johnson drug, Risperdal.

Nicholas was prescribed Risperdal from the age of nine for sleeping problems. Risperdal is usually prescribed to treat psychological and neurological disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It can also be prescribed for certain types of autism spectrum disorders that present in an aggressive and irritable manner. Risperdal studies have shown that the drug can help with these symptoms without leaving patients feeling drugged with a sedative.

Even with the widespread use of Risperdal, many patients, like Nicholas, have found that it has devastating side effects. A reported link between Risperdal and gynecomastia has led to a wave of products liability litigation brought by patients like Nicholas. Nearly 6,000 such cases are pending in a mass tort program in Philadelphia.

In November 2015, Nicholas won a $1.75 million Risperdal jury verdict. However, he may not be able to recover this money. A judge has determined that Nicholas’ Risperdal jury verdict is subject to the laws of two different states regarding damages caps.

Essentially, the lawsuit was won in Maryland, so the Risperdal jury verdict is subject to Maryland laws. The manufacturing company also has extensive ties to New Jersey, a judge in a previous mass tort determined, so this Risperdal jury verdict is also subject to New Jersey laws.

Under Maryland law, there is a cap on noneconomic damages, also known as “general damages.” They can be subjective because it is difficult to put a dollar amount on things such as pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium or companionship, the injury itself or disability or disfigurement.

Maryland law limits noneconomic damages to $680,000.

Under New Jersey law, to which the judge in this Risperdal jury verdict determined the case was subject, punitive damages for claims regarding drugs that obtained FDA premarket approval or licensures are barred.

The reason that Nicholas’ Risperdal jury verdict falls underneath New Jersey law regarding punitive damages comes from a 2014 ruling by a judge in the Risperdal mass tort that determined that Janssen had extensive business ties in New Jersey and therefore was subject to state law.

One of the attorneys for Nicholas told a Superior Court panel, “What’s happening to Nick…is that he is caught, he is being whipsawed. These are two different states constructing two different balances and here you have a guy who’s getting caught on the wrong side of both.”

This same attorney recently argued that punitive damages should be determined individually and not as part of the mass tort so that each party involved is treated fairly and that the interests of everyone were properly balanced.

Nicholas’s Risperdal Lawsuit is Case Nos. 1172 EDA 2016 and 1302 EDA 2016, before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.