In a recent Risperdal side effects lawsuit, a plaintiff is asking a Pennsylvania state judge to rethink a decision about dismissing the claim in the middle of the trial.

Risperdal is an antipsychotic drug that treats many different disorders including schizophrenia. Many have taken issue with the drug because it is thought to cause a condition called gynecomastia. Gynecomastia is a disorder in which males develop female sized breasts.

In this Risperdal side effects lawsuit, the plaintiff Dean H. argued that he had enough evidence to show a link between his condition and Risperdal. However, Judge Kenneth Powell tried to dismiss the case stating that the evidence presented did not show a sufficient link between the drug and the stated disorder.

The motion said, “The evidence introduced by plaintiff more than sufficed to meet his evidentiary burden and the case should have been permitted to proceed to the jury.”

Dean claimed that he took Risperdal for six months as a child and as a result developed gynecomastia. He took Risperdal to treat behavioral problems.

When Risperdal leads to gynecomastia, it is believed that it is because of increased prolactin production in males because of the drug. Risperdal is manufactured by defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

Nearly 6,000 similar claims have been filed against Janssen in a mass tort in Philadelphia County. Each Risperdal side effects lawsuit claims that Janssen did not properly warn patients about the risks of developing gynecomastia.

Before October 2006, the label for Risperdal stated that the risk of developing gynecomastia was present but very rare, occurring in less than 1 in 1000.

Plaintiffs say that Janssen and Johnson & Johnson had data showing that the risk was much more higher than “rare,” and that they did not disclose this information with the medical community or the public.

Eventually, the label for Rispedal was updated to show a 2.3 percent rate of gynecomastia in patients.

This particular Risperdal side effects trial was fraught with difficulties. Initially, a mistrial was declared in March when an expert witness rushed to the aid of a juror. At the beginning of April, the Riseprdal side effects lawsuit went to trial once again, this time leading to the judge dismissing the lawsuit.

Regarding the mistrial earlier this year, the plaintiff claimed that the judge did not do what is right regarding this case. He argued, “The trial court erred and abused its discretion in granting a mistrial without conducting voir dire of the jury to determine whether they were in fact prejudiced. For this reason, the court should lift the nonsuit and order a new trial.”

The Risperdal Side Effects Lawsuit is Case No. 130600861, in the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia.