As a third Risperdal gynecomastia trial continues in Philadelphia, the judge overseeing the bellwether trails outlined an earlier decision to bar juries from considering punitive damages against the drug’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.

Philadelphia Judge Arnold New’s opinion explained that because Risperdal is manufactured and marketed in New Jersey, he is bound by New Jersey product liability law.

New Jersey’s stricter rules mean that juries cannot award injured plaintiffs monetary damages designed to punish J&J for recklessly or willfully disregarding consumer safety.

Injured plaintiffs claim that the company failed to adequately warn patients and the medical community that Risperdal may cause a devastating condition known as gynecomastia in boys and young men.  Gynecomastia involves the development of female-like breasts.

Judge New’s opinion came in the midst of a Risperdal lawsuit brough by Tim S., who was prescribed Risperdal to treat Tourette syndrome when he was 11 years old. According to Tim’s lawsuit, he grew female breasts that were so large he had to undergo breast reduction surgery.

Tim claims that as a result of the Risperdal-induced breast growth, he suffered mental anguish and emotional damage due to the bullying he received from his peers.

Tim’s lawsuit is the third in a series of bellwether trials in Pennsylvania state court, involving approximately 1,500 other pending Risperdal gynecomastia lawsuits.

These similar claims were consolidated to help determine how juries may react to certain evidence, which is likely to be repeated throughout the Risperdal litigation.

Overview of Risperdal Gynecomastia Allegations

Risperdal was originally approved in 1993 to treat adult patients with extreme mental disorders. The FDA later approved it to treat children. However, the drug’s manufacturers allegedly marketed Risperdal to children for unapproved uses, which resulted in many boys and young men developing childhood gynecomastia.

The first Risperdal lawsuit heard in Pennsylvania state court was filed by Austin P. and his family, which resulted in a $2.5 million victory in February 2015.

However, a month later, the jury handed down a defense verdict in a similar lawsuit filed by William C., stating that there was insufficient evidence indicating that Risperdal had caused the plaintiff’s abnormal breast growth.

It remains to be seen how the third Risperdal lawsuit will turn out, but Tim’s lawyers will continue to seek the damages owed to their client.