Preview Newsletter
Reckis Mass. SJC Ruling Media Monitoring Report 4/17/2015
-
$63 million verdict in Children’s Motrin case upheld
Apr 17, 2015 | The Boston Globe
By Martin Finucane
The highest court in Massachusetts has upheld a $63 million legal judgment against health care giant Johnson & Johnson in the case of a little girl who nearly died and was left legally blind after taking one of the country’s most common household medicines, Children’s Motrin. -
Massachusetts highest court upholds $63M judgment against maker of Children's Motrin
Apr 17, 2015 | Associated Press
The highest court in Massachusetts has upheld a $63 million judgment against the manufacturer of Children's Motrin awarded to a family whose daughter developed a life-threatening disease after taking the over-the-counter medicine. -
Judge upholds $63M ruling against Johnson & Johnson for girl's rare reaction
Apr 17, 2015 | NJ.com
By Craig McCarthy
The highest court in Massachusetts upheld a $63 million ruling against a New Jersey-based health care company for a 7-year-old's reaction to children's pain medication that nearly killed her and left her blind, according to The Boston Globe. -
Court up holds $63M judgment for Plymouth family in drug reaction case
Apr 17, 2015 | The Patriot Ledger
By Neal Simpson
The state's highest court has upheld a $63 million judgment awarded to the family of a former Plymouth girl whose parents say she was severely burned and nearly blinded by a reaction to an over-the-counter children’s medicine more than a decade ago. -
Reckis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson (jury verdict)
Apr 17, 2015 | The Scribe With The Scroll
The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict against the manufacturer of children’s ibuprofen. The jury found that the product caused the plaintiff’s 7-year-old daughter’s toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and the product was defective because the label did not contain a warning about the risk of certain life-threatening diseases, awarding $50 Million Dollars in compensatory damages and $6.5 Million Dollars to each of the parent for loss of consortium.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Reckis Mass. SJC Ruling Articles
Full Text of Stories Below
-
$63 million verdict in Children’s Motrin case upheld
Apr 17, 2015 | The Boston Globe
By Martin Finucane
The highest court in Massachusetts has upheld a $63 million legal judgment against health care giant Johnson & Johnson in the case of a little girl who nearly died and was left legally blind after taking one of the country’s most common household medicines, Children’s Motrin.
The Supreme Judicial Court issued the ruling Friday affirming a Plymouth County jury’s 2013 award in the case of Samantha Reckis. The girl’s family had argued that the company had failed to warn patients adequately about the painkiller’s potential side effects.
Among other things, the court said it disagreed with Johnson & Johnson’s claim that the jury award was excessive.
The court noted a long list of the injuries that Samantha had suffered, including loss of 95 percent of the top layer of her skin, an injury like that of a severe burn victim; and liver and heart failure, a stroke, seizures, and cranial hemorrhage. It said she was left legally blind and had other continuing disabilities and faced “hospitalizations and limitations for the remainder of her life.”
“To be sure,” the court said, “Samantha’s parents testified about her remarkable ability to endure these injuries while maintaining a positive outlook and prospects for the future. Samantha herself testified to her belief that she will lead a ‘great life.’ The jury could applaud this optimism but nevertheless reasonably infer from the significant extent of Samantha’s past pain and suffering, and the state of her health, that she will likely experience pain and suffering throughout her life.”
“Accordingly, we cannot say that the jury’s award is ‘greatly disproportionate’ to Samantha’s grave injuries,” the court said in a 54-page decision written by Justice Margot Botsford.
The Globe reported in 2013 that Samantha had received the drug around Thanksgiving in 2003, when she was 7, and suffered an extremely rare and painful skin disorder caused by reaction to some medications.
“The Reckis family has suffered a tragedy, and we sympathize deeply with them,” McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the parent company of Johnson & Johnson said in a statement.
The company said it was reviewing the Supreme Judicial Court ruling.
“We continue to believe that McNeil Consumer Healthcare acted appropriately, responsibly and in the best interests of patients,” the statement said, noting the rarity of the condition that Samantha suffered from.
“Over decades and millions of uses, ibuprofen, the active ingredient in Children’s MOTRIN, has proven safe and effective when used as directed for the treatment of minor aches, pains and fever,” the company said.
-
Massachusetts highest court upholds $63M judgment against maker of Children's Motrin
Apr 17, 2015 | Associated Press
The highest court in Massachusetts has upheld a $63 million judgment against the manufacturer of Children's Motrin awarded to a family whose daughter developed a life-threatening disease after taking the over-the-counter medicine.
A jury ruled in 2013 that the McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit of Johnson & Johnson failed to provide sufficient warnings about potential side effects.
Samantha Reckis was 7 in 2003 when she was given the ibuprofen product for a fever. She developed a rare skin disease known as toxic epidermal necrolysis and was blinded.
The company appealed, saying the family failed to prove the medicine caused the disease and damages were xcessive.
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected those arguments on Friday.
The company said it's reviewing the decision, adding that while it sympathizes with the family, Motrin has been used safely millions of times.
-
Judge upholds $63M ruling against Johnson & Johnson for girl's rare reaction
Apr 17, 2015 | NJ.com
By Craig McCarthy
The highest court in Massachusetts upheld a $63 million ruling against a New Jersey-based health care company for a 7-year-old's reaction to children's pain medication that nearly killed her and left her blind, according to The Boston Globe.
Two years ago, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary were ordered by a Massachusetts Superior Court to pay Samantha Reckis, now 16, and her parents a total of $109 million including interest.
The girl's family, of Plymouth, had argued the company did not adequately warn patients of potential side effects. The McNeil unit, Johnson & Johnson Services subsidiary based in New Brunswick, said in 2013 it disagreed with the verdict claiming it was excessive.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the ruling Friday citing a long list of injuries Samantha had suffered and will live with for the rest of her life, the report said.
When Samantha was 7, she suffered a rare side effect, known as toxic epidermal necrolysis, after her parents gave her Motrin brand ibuprofen, the family's attorney Brad Henry said.
She lost 90 percent of her skin, was blinded and suffered brain damage, he said. It also damaged her respiratory system and now has 20 percent lung capacity.
Johnson & Johnson did not immediately respond for comment on the ruling.
-
Court up holds $63M judgment for Plymouth family in drug reaction case
Apr 17, 2015 | The Patriot Ledger
By Neal Simpson
The state's highest court has upheld a $63 million judgment awarded to the family of a former Plymouth girl whose parents say she was severely burned and nearly blinded by a reaction to an over-the-counter children’s medicine more than a decade ago.
In a decision released Friday, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected McNeil Consumer Healthcare's claim that federal regulators would not have allowed it to label Children’s Motrin with the warning called for by the family of Samantha Reckis, a Kingston teenager left with a lifetime of medical issues after receiving several doses of the medicine when she was 7. The court also found that the judgment awarded to Reckis’s family – which includes $50 million for Samantha and $6.5 million for each of her parents – was generous but reasonable.
"This decision is at least some measure of justice for Samantha and her family, even though they're going to be dealing with Sammy’s injures for the rest of her life," said Michael Bogdanow, an attorney representing the family
In a statement, McNeil said it sympathizes with the Reckis family but continues to believe the company “acted appropriately, responsibly and in the best interest of patients” in its handling of Children’s Motrin. The company said it is still reviewing the court’s decision.
Reckis, now an 18-year-old high school student splitting her time between Kingston and Plymouth, became suddenly ill around Thanksgiving 2003 after her parents gave her several doses of Children’s Motrin brand iburpfen to treat a mild fever. As her condition rapidly worsened, doctors diagnosed her with toxic epidermal necrolysis – a rare condition that causes flesh to blister and burn from the inside out – and placed her in a medically induced coma for several weeks to shield her from the pain.
Reckis survived, but the then-7-year-old was left frail, badly burned and nearly blind, with 95 percent of her skin burned off and her lung capacity reduced by 80 percent. Her family says she faces a lifetime of medical treatments and increased risk of disease and will never be able to drive or have children, according to the decision.
The family sued McNeil, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, in 2007, claiming that the company failed to warn consumers of symptoms that could indicate a life-threatening allergic reaction to ibuprofen. Reckis’ parents, Lisa and Richard Reckis, say they would have stopped giving her Motrin after she developed a rash if such a warning had been printed on the bottle.
After a five week trial in Plymouth County Superior Court, a jury found that Johnson & Johnson had violated Massachusetts law by failing to warn consumer of potentially lethal side effects of Children’s Motrin, awarding the family a total of $63 million.In its appeal, McNeil argued that it could not have used the warning label that the family called for because the federal Food and Drug Administration would not have allowed it.
The company noted that while the agency recommended new labeling for Motrin after Reckis’ illness – including new wording about symptoms of an allergic reaction – it specifically rejected language that mentioned the condition that sickened her by name.The court, however, said Johnson & Johnson was still obligated to properly warn consumers about its product and had no way of knowing whether the FDA would accept the warning if it sought to add it. The court also rejected the company’s argument that an expert who testified on behalf of the family was not qualified and that the judgment awarded them was unreasonable.
In its statement, McNeil said Children’s Motrin has been used for decades and “has proven safe and effective when used as directed for the treatment of minor aches, pains and fever.” The company noted that the condition that sickened Reckis is “very rare” and that its cause can be difficult to determine.The family’s attorney, Michael Bogdanow, said Samantha Reckis remains frail and almost completely blind today, but maintains a “positive attitude” despite her significant health problems.“She just wants to keep going forward with her life and make the best of it,” he said. “She’s an amazing young woman.”
-
Reckis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson (jury verdict)
Apr 17, 2015 | The Scribe With The Scroll
The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict against the manufacturer of children’s ibuprofen. The jury found that the product caused the plaintiff’s 7-year-old daughter’s toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and the product was defective because the label did not contain a warning about the risk of certain life-threatening diseases, awarding $50 Million Dollars in compensatory damages and $6.5 Million Dollars to each of the parent for loss of consortium.
The child suffered the catastrophic illness after being given multiple doses of the medication, has had multiple hospitalizations and surgeries and the effects of the illness and resulting scarring continue to severely impact her life.
The manufacturer appealed the jury’s verdict, claiming that: 1) the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act governs medication labelling and did not permit the labelling called for by the plaintiffs; 2) the plaintiff’s had not provided sufficient evidence to support the finding that the medication caused the child’s disease; and 3) the jury’s award of damages was “excessive.”
The Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s verdict. It held that the FDA had rejected that the actual names of the diseases, Erythema Multiforme, TEN and Steven Johnson Syndrome, be included on the label, but had not prohibited the manufacturer from including a warning on the label of rash and blisters that may lead to a life-threatening disease. Further the court found substantial evidence in the record to show that the experts’ testimony was competent, reliable and admissible toward a showing that the medication had caused the child’s illness.
Finally, the court upheld the award of damages, repeating for the record the extent of the child’s injuries. The 7-year-old “suffered lesions (blisters) all over her body and lost the top layer of her skin (over ninety-five percent of it) , substantially the same as for a severe burn victim; she was hospitalized for six months, where she need to be placed in a medically-induced coma for a full month to deal with the pain; while in the hospital, she suffered liver and heart failure, a stroke, seizures, and a cranial hemorrhage, and had only twenty percent of her lung capacity; upon discharge she was required to eat through a feeding tube for two years and required oxygen every night for the same period of time; at the time of trial, she weighed just eighty-two as a sixteen year old; she is legally blind; her short-term memory is damaged; her lung capacity remains significantly impaired; and she will never be able to carry a child as a result; and she faces hospitalizations and limitations for the remainder of her life.”
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Reckis Mass. SJC Ruling Articles
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested