MASS TORTS Corner
MASS TORTS Corner
Plaintiffs ’ Xarelto Victory was Short Lived ; Verdict Overturned on Appeal
JOSEPH OSBORNE
Bayer and Johnson & Johnson recently secured reversal of a December 2017 $ 28.7 million dollar verdict awarded to Pennsylvania Plaintiffs . The ruling came after the judge considered motions to reverse the verdict . The Pennsylvania Court overturned the jury award in the Xarelto product liability litigation alleging Bayer and Johnson & Johnson failed to warn of internal bleeding risks related to the product .
Judge Michael Erdos entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict finding no reasonable jury could have reached the same conclusion . Specifically , the decision was reversed “ based on a very narrow issue related to Plaintiff ’ s prescribing physician .”
Florida ’ s competent substantial evidence test is consistent with the clearly erroneous test under federal law . See , e . g ., Pullman- Standard v . Swint , 456 U . S . 273 ( 1982 ); Rule 52 ( a ), Fed . R . Civ . P . Appellate decisions can determine the strength of each side ’ s case and can help shape legal settlements . Moving forward , Plaintiffs will undoubtedly focus on the presentation of strong prescribing physician testimony in an effort to avoid a similar result in future trials .
Mr . Osborne practices with the Boca Raton firm of Osborne & Associates in the area of complex civil litigation , including mass torts . He can be reached at JOsborne @ oa-lawfirm . com
Judge Erdos found the testimony of Dr . Josephine Randazzo , the plaintiff ’ s prescribing physician , was insufficient to establish that Xarelto ’ s manufacturers had failed to require a coagulation test prior to the drug ’ s prescription . The original verdict entered in December was the first case to prevail against Bayer and Johnson & Johnson . Approximately 21,000 cases are pending across the country .
In Florida , because jury verdicts unquestionably rest on factual determinations , appellate courts look to see whether the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the decision . See Helman v . Seaboard Coast Line R . R . Co ., 349 So . 2d 1187 ( Fla . 1977 ) ( jury ); Abreau v . Amaro , 534 So . 2d 771 ( Fla . 3d DCA 1988 ) ( nonjury ); State v . Garcia , 431 So . 2d 651 ( Fla . 3d DCA 1983 ) ( evidentiary hearing ); Gershanik v . Dept . of Prof ’ l Regulation , Bd . of Med . Examiners , 438 So . 2d 302 ( Fla . 3d DCA 1984 ) ( administrative ). But see Gen . Tele . Co . of Florida v . Florida Pub . Serv . Comm ., 446 So . 2d 1063 ( Fla . 1984 ) ( arbitrary and capricious standard used when reviewing administrative rule-making authority ); see generally Florida Appellate Practice § 9.6 at 156 .
�
������
��������
�������
������
��������������������
������������������������� ����������������������� �������������������������������������� ��������������������������������
�
�������������� ������������
PALMBEACHBAR . ORG 12