Pa. Superior Court Opens Door for Punitive Damages Claims in Risperdal Mass Tort
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has opened the door for plaintiffs in the Risperdal mass tort to seek possible punitive damages. The ruling significantly raises the stakes of the litigation, which currently involves more than 6,000 pending cases in Philadelphia.
January 08, 2018 at 04:03 PM
4 minute read

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has opened the door for plaintiffs in the Risperdal mass tort to seek possible punitive damages. The ruling significantly raises the stakes of the litigation, which currently involves more than 6,000 pending cases in Philadelphia.
A three-judge Superior Court panel ruled Monday that plaintiffs may seek to have the law of their home state apply to their case when it comes to the question of whether they should be allowed to seek punitive damages at trial. The ruling reversed a decision that had applied New Jersey law to the litigation globally. The Garden State's products liability law specifically prohibits punitive damages.
The ruling, which was outlined in a 42-page opinion in Stange v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, did not hold that punitive damages needed to apply in the case, but it said the trial judge should have considered whether to apply Wisconsin law, which is the law of plaintiff Timothy Stange's home state.
“The trial court only considered whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law should apply, not the law of the individual plaintiff's home state,” Superior Court Judge Kate Ford Elliott said. “We agree with Stange that it is necessary to remand for the trial court to allow Stange to develop an individual record on choice-of-law as it relates to his unique circumstances and to set out the facts and state interests important to his particular case.”
Although the ruling came from a three-judge panel, one judge on the panel, Judge Alice Beck Dubow, did not participate in the ruling. Judge Jack Panella joined Elliott's opinion.
The stakes in Stange's case are relatively low, as Wisconsin law only provides for doubling the $500,000 compensatory award; however, several Risperdal cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar verdicts, including a $70 million compensatory award.
Janssen, which is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, is the main defendant in the litigation.
A spokeswoman for Janssen said, “We are disappointed in the court's ruling and will consider our options going forward.”
According to Kline & Specter attorney Thomas R. Kline, who is a lead attorney in the litigation, the Superior Court's decision will require the cases that have already been tried to be re-evaluated for punitive damages. He said he expects the new analysis will lead courts to apply the law of each plaintiff's home state, which means the cases already tried will be sent back for a new trial specifically on the amount of punitive damages.
“The stakes in any mass tort are raised when punitive damages are recoverable,” Kline said. ”This thoughtful and thorough opinion will now provide guidance for the entire litigation moving forward.”
Kline said there have been no meaningful settlement talks in the litigation so far, but this ruling could change that.
Sheller P.C. attorney Steve Sheller, who is also a lead attorney in the litigation, agreed.
“This is something we've been right about from the beginning and maybe now, once and for all, J&J will recognize they're facing punitive damages,” he said.
According to court documents, Stange had taken Risperdal from 2006 to 2009 to control his Tourette syndrome symptoms. He argued that Janssen had been aware of the risks of the drug to cause excess breast tissue growth, which is a condition known as gynecomastia, but the company hid that information.
Along with contesting the grounds for Stange's compensation award, Janssen had argued that New Jersey law should apply to the cases, since J&J's principal place of business is in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All


Pa. Superior Court Rules Pizza Chain Liable for Franchisee Driver's Crash
4 minute read
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250