Risperdal
Plaintiffs seeking a judgment against Johnson & Johnson, the makers of the drug Risperdal, saw a big victory this week out of Philadelphia. A jury sided with the family of an autistic boy who grew size 44 DD breasts after taking Risperdal in 2002. The Wall Street Journal, along with many other publications, wrote about the verdict, which was handed down on February 24, 2015.
Growing breasts was one of several risks that Johnson & Johnson knew about but hid from the Food and Drug Administration, lawyers said. The condition is called gynecomastia. Some patients have been forced to undergo surgery to remove the breasts.
Due to the widespread use of this drug, our firm believes there are many patients who have taken Risperdal and may very well have suffered similar problems, or other side effects. ELPO is accepting cases against Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Risperdal, representing children and their families who have been harmed by Risperdal. The drug treats the symptoms of psychiatric disorders. In addition to gynecomastia, there is an increased risk of stroke and diabetes for patients taking Risperdal.
We want to help patients protect their rights, and encourage anyone who has taken Risperdal or who has a family member who has done so to contact us as soon as possible. Read More
The Kentucky Court of Appeals has found that Virginia law applied in an uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage dispute arising out of a Kentucky tractor-trailer crash. In an unpublished opinion, a Virginia truck driver sued the insurance carrier for another motorist who struck his big rig head-on. The tractor-trailer wreck occurred on Interstate 65 in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 2009. At the time of the collision, the other motorist was allegedly intoxicated and traveling in the wrong direction on the freeway. Following the accident, the truck driver settled with the at-fault driver’s liability insurer for the full policy limits of $25,000.
After that, the semi-truck driver’s motor vehicle insurer waived its subrogation rights against the other driver. The trucker then sought $25,000 in UIM benefits from his own auto insurer. The truck driver’s UIM insurer denied his claim because the at-fault driver was not an underinsured motorist according to the definition included in his insurance policy. In addition, the company claimed that Virginia law allowed it to offset the $25,000 payment the truck driver received from the other driver’s insurer against his potential UIM benefits. Because of this, the trucker’s insurer claimed that he was not entitled to receive additional payment as a result of his UIM coverage. Read More
In Barnes v. Saulsberry, a man sued a taxi cab driver and the owner of the taxi cab following an accident on the side of the highway. The man was standing on the shoulder of a Tennessee highway waiting for emergency personnel to arrive following a traffic collision. While the man was outside his vehicle, a taxi cab struck a parked automobile. The parked vehicle collided with the man’s car, which then hit the man. As a result, the man allegedly sustained permanent and disabling harm.
About one year after the automobile accident, the injured man filed a negligence lawsuit against the taxi cab driver and its owner in Shelby County, Tennessee. According to the man, the defendants caused him to suffer numerous broken bones, ongoing pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and more. Following a jury trial, the man received a damages award of $1 million. After unsuccessfully seeking a new trial, the defendants filed an appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville. Read More
