A Pennsylvania court has dismissed a Risperdal lawsuit accusing Janssen Pharmaceuticals and its parent company Johnson & Johnson of concealing the side effects of Risperdal on young male users, after ruling that the case was filed too late.

The ruling highlights how important it is for plaintiffs seeking compensation for Risperdal gynecomastia side effects to seek legal representation as soon as possible.

Plaintiff Joshua W. took Risperdal for anger management from 1997 to 1998. By the end of 1998, Joshua had noticed he had developed several Risperdal side effects, including gynecomastia.

Gynecomastia is the abnormal development of breast tissue in males. Severe cases may require surgical correction, necessitating extended recovery time and causing physical and emotional suffering.

At the time of Joshua’s Risperdal use, reports of Risperdal gynecomastia were just beginning to emerge. Since then, the link between Risperdal and gynecomastia has been well established.

Joshua did not realize he could have a claim against Risperdal’s manufacturers until December 2013, when his mother told him about a television advertisement for a Risperdal lawsuit. He filed his own Risperdal lawsuit in March 2014.

As is common in products liability lawsuits, he raised claims for negligence, defective product design, fraud, failure to warn, breach of warranty, violation of Pennsylvania’s unfair trade practices law, and conspiracy. He sought compensation for medical expenses as well as punitive damages against defendants Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson.

Risperdal Statute of Limitations

The defendants asked the court to dismiss Joshua’s Risperdal lawsuit because, they argued, it was filed too late under the applicable statute of limitations.

Statutes of limitations require would-be plaintiffs to initiate their lawsuit by certain deadlines or else be barred from ever asserting their claims. Different types of claims have different limitations periods, and certain events may push back the date on which those periods begin to run.

In Joshua’s case, the court applied three different limitations periods to Joshua’s 12 separate claims, depending on the type of claim.

The court determined that Joshua’s claims accrued no later than the end of 1998, when he visually observed his Risperdal side effects. Based on that date of accrual, the court determined Joshua’s breach of warranty claims expired in December 2002 and his unfair trade practices claims expired in December 2004.

As for his tort claims, Joshua argued that the limitations period should be paused, or “tolled,” until December 2013, when he discovered that he had a claim.

The court determined that Joshua’s tort claims were discoverable by no later than the end of June 2009, based on a buildup of media reports of the link between Risperdal and gynecomastia beginning as early as 2001 and continuing through June 2009. Therefore, even if the limitations period was tolled until as late as possible, Joshua’s tort claims would have expired by the end of June 2011.

Since Joshua did not file his Risperdal lawsuit until March 2014, the court determined all his claims were untimely and therefore barred.

Other Risperdal Lawsuits

Joshua’s case is an unfortunate example of what happens when a plaintiff waits too long to take action on his claim. There are still over 1,300 other Risperdal lawsuits now pending against Janssen and Johnson & Johnson over Risperdal side effects such as gynecomastia.

Other product liability lawsuits similar to Joshua’s seek damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and lost wages or earning capacity.

Victims’ spouses can sometimes get compensation for the effect of the defective product on the marital relationship. Many applicable consumer protection laws also provide compensation for the plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs of litigation.

Joshua’s lawsuit was part of a consolidation of Risperdal cases in Pennsylvania state court. This group of Risperdal lawsuits is titled In re Risperdal Litigation, No. 1170, Control no. 14082046.