Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

State of South Carolina v. Johnson & Johnson d/b/a Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals

Date: 03-26-2011

Case Number:

Judge:

Court: Circuit Court, Spartanburg County, South Carolina

Plaintiff's Attorney: John White, Harrison, White, Smith & Coggins, P.C., Spartanburg, South Carolina

Defendant's Attorney:

Description:
State of South Carolina sued Johnson & Johnson d/b/a Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals on a consumer protection law violation theory claiming that Defendant attempted to mislead South Carolina doctors by sending them letters about the safety and effectiveness of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. Plaintiff claimed that J&J's Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit engaged in "unfair and deceptive acts” by sending a 2003 letter touting Risperdal as better and safer than competing drugs to more than 7,000 doctors across the state.

South Carolina officials argued in the case that J&J sent the letter to protect billions of dollars in sales of the antipsychotic drug.

The defenses asserted by Defendant are not available.
Outcome:
Plaintiff's verdict. The court will decide whether Defendant should pay $36 million in penalties over the mailings.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of State of South Carolina v. Johnson & Johnson d/b/a Ortho-...?

The outcome was: Plaintiff's verdict. The court will decide whether Defendant should pay $36 million in penalties over the mailings.

Which court heard State of South Carolina v. Johnson & Johnson d/b/a Ortho-...?

This case was heard in Circuit Court, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, SC.

Who were the attorneys in State of South Carolina v. Johnson & Johnson d/b/a Ortho-...?

Plaintiff's attorney: John White, Harrison, White, Smith & Coggins, P.C., Spartanburg, South Carolina.

When was State of South Carolina v. Johnson & Johnson d/b/a Ortho-... decided?

This case was decided on March 26, 2011.