A Philadelphia judge refused to rehear a Risperdal lawsuit brought by a teenage plaintiff who claims Risperdal, the popular Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc.’s antipsychotic drug, caused him to grow unnatural male breasts.

Plaintiff William C. informed the court that there were several alleged problems with the Risperdal gynecomastia trial before the jury ruled that the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary’s negligence had not been the  cause of William’s male breast growth (gynecomastia). One issue the plaintiff pointed out was that the defense referred to his enlarged breasts as “tennis balls” throughout the Risperdal trial.

Despite William’s arguments, Judge Victor DiNubile of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denied the plaintiff’s post-trial motion.

The now 19-year old William originally filed this Risperdal lawsuit in March 2013 against J&J and Janssen, claiming that after years of taking the antipsychotic medication to treat his oppositional defiant disorder, William developed Risperdal gynecomastia.

The plaintiff had initially been diagnosed with this disorder in 2002 when he was six-years old, at which time his doctor prescribed him Risperdal. At the time William was prescribed Risperdal, the J&J antipsychotic drug had only been approved by the FDA for adult prescription.

A few years later in 2006, the FDA approved it for additional use in pediatrics, and Janssen updated Risperdal’s label to reflect the child and adolescent risk of gynecomastia when taking this drug.

According to the Risperdal lawsuit, prior to the FDA’s second approval, the Risperdal label informed users that gynecomastia occurred in less than one in every 1,000 patients. After the FDA 2006 approval for use in children and adolescents, the drug’s label was updated to reflect that gynecomastia occurred in about 2.3 percent of pediatric patients.

William claims that J&J and Janssen were aware of the higher level of gynecomastia risk prior to 2006, but refused to inform prescribing doctors about this health risk, according to the Risperdal gynecomastia lawsuit.

Jury Rules in Favor of Janssen in this Risperdal Case

After a month of trial, a Philadelphia jury came to a verdict, finding that Janssen had been negligent because the company failed to warn about the drug-induced gynecomastia. However, the same jury decided in an 11 to 1 vote that the J&J pharmaceutical subsidiary was not responsible for William’s gynecomastia condition.

The jury states that the plaintiff either does not suffer from Risperdal gynecomastia or, if he does suffer from this condition, then it was not brought on by his use of the Janssen antipsychotic drug.

In response to the jury’s ruling, William filed a post-trial motion. His new complaint takes issues with William’s physician’s aide testimony, which states that she found the plaintiffs’ enlarged breasts were not due to Risperdal gynecomastia, but rather could be attributed to weight gain. William’s post-trial motion for his Risperdal lawsuit also questions the defense’s expert’s testimony, which opined that in the plaintiff’s case, the benefits of using Risperal far outweighed potential risks.

However, Judge DiNubile disagreed with William’s arguments and has refused to rehear the Risperdal lawsuit.

William’s is not giving up though. According to the plaintiff’s attorney, “We are confident that the issues raised on appeal are meritorious and expect to appeal to the Superior Court.” For now, however, Janssen has successfully defended itself against this individual Risperdal lawsuit, one of hundreds across the nation.

The Risperdal Gynecomastia Lawsuit is Case No. 130301803, in the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia.