A $2.5 million Risperdal award has been upheld by a Pennsylvania state judge.

Judge Ramy Djerassi in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas said Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s request for a new trial regarding male breast growth linked to Risperdal use was denied because of the company’s “extraordinary” defense moves that justified the plaintiffs in bringing forth a new expert witness.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. It manufactures Risperdal, an atypical antipsychotic medication sometimes used to treat emotional and behavioral issues in teens and children.

Judge Djerassi said that Janssen’s lawyers surprised the courtroom by making a last-minute effort to question whether Dr. David Goldstein of Missouri might have violated the law by examining the plaintiff in the state of Alabama because Dr. Goldstein is not licensed in Alabama.

“The timing of Janssen’s motion and the nature of their accusation were extraordinary and seemed calculated for maximum surprise,” the opinion said. “If Janssen’s late motion were granted, plaintiff would have no choice but [to] move for voluntary nonsuit. If the motion were denied, then Dr. Goldstein would likely choose to take the Fifth Amendment or testify with predictable damage to his credibility. Either way, if the motion had been filed before trial, there would not have been extraordinary prejudice to plaintiff who would likely have moved for a continuance before undergoing the expense of trial.”

Janssen Fighting Risperdal Award

Plaintiff Austin P. was only seven years old when he began taking antipsychotic medication Risperdal in 2002. At that time, Risperdal was only FDA approved for use by adult patients with schizophrenia.

In 2006, the drug was approved to treat autistic children, and at that time, the label reported that gynecomastia (man boobs) had been recorded as an adverse side effect in 2.3 percent of young patients. Previous label had indicated gynecomastia was rare.

In February 2015, a jury awarded the $2.5 million Risperdal award to Austin.

Janssen responded by filing post-trial motions seeking a new trial, stating that Austin’s attorneys should not have been allowed to bring in a new expert after Dr. Goldstein withdrew from the case. Dr. Goldstein only withdrew because of Janssen’s concerns about his examination of the plaintiff done in Alabama.

Janssen’s attorneys claimed they were not prepared to conduct a cross-examination on Philadelphia-based plastic surgeon Mark Solomon, who served as the new witness.  Dr. Solomon’s opinions were much different than those of Dr. Goldstein, said Janssen’s attorneys, in their argument against the Risperdal award.

Judge Djerassi responded that Dr. Solomon’s opinions were known because he had been deposed just a few months earlier as part of another Risperdal case.

“There was no undue surprise to Janssen,” the opinion said. “The trial record shows Janssen’s trial lawyers were prepared.”

The Risperdal Award Lawsuit is Case No. 120401997 in the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia.