The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

$4.2 Million Topamax Verdict Affirmed for Infant Born with Cleft Palate

Posted on September 11, 2015 by Larry Bodine

TopamaxA Pennsylvania appeals court has rejected the appeal of a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, requiring it to pay $4.2 million in damages to an infant born with a severe cleft lip and cleft palate after his mother was prescribed Topamax during her pregnancy.

April Czimmer of Virgina was prescribed Topamax, made by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to treat migraine headaches in August 2006.  She became pregnant in December 2006 and continued the use of Topamax throughout her pregnancy.

Blake Czimmer was born in September 2007 with a severe cleft lip and cleft palate with a hole above his lip.  The child underwent four surgeries and will require jaw reconstruction and bone graft surgeries in the future.

When Blake was approximately four years old, the Czimmers filed a complaint alleging that Janssen negligently failed to warn her prescribing physician of the risk of potential birth defects associated with the use of Topamax during pregnancy.

Hundreds of similar lawsuits pending

The complaint was filed in the Philadelphia County Court because Janssen is a Pennsylvania corporation. A jury returned a verdict of $4,002,184.68 in favor of April, as Blake’s guardian.

There are more than 130 similar lawsuits pending against Janssen that have been consolidated in Philadelphia as part of a multi-district litigation docket.  The largest jury award granted to an infant suffering cleft lip defects from the mother’s use of Topamax in utero so far has been $11 million.

The trial court denied Janssen’s post-trial motion requesting a judgement notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial and added an additional $207,713 in delay damages.

On appeal, Janssen raised four issues, the most significant focusing on the standard of causation.  Janssen asserted that the trial court erred in applying a “substantial factor” standard of causation, which was expressly rejected by Virginia state law, used because of the Czimmer’s use of medication and childbirth occurring in Virginia.

Substantial factor used in jury instructions

The jury instructions stated that if the jury found Janssen negligent, they then had to determine if Janssen’s negligence was a “substantial factor, or sometimes called a factual cause” in Blake Czimmer’s cleft lip and palate.

The jury instructions further explained the fair preponderance or fair weight standard of the evidence and clarified that “factual cause” is used in place of “substantial factor” to determine a legal cause.

Janssen argued that the use of “substantial factor overlooks the Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of that language to explain causation.”  The court declined the argument, writing that it asks them to “isolate the words” and “take them out of context.”

See also: Appeals Court Upholds $11M Topamax Birth Defects Verdict

The appeals court reasoned that the Virginia Supreme Court’s disapproval of the phrase stemmed from its ambiguity.  Either a jury could view a substantial factor as “something less than but-for” causation, lowering the burden of proof, or it could be viewed as elevating the burden of proof to “something more than mere preponderance.”

The court found this ambiguity concern to be irrelevant in this case because the trial court gave meaning and context to the term “substantial factor” and clarified that the Czimmers had the burden to prove negligence by a fair preponderance of the evidence.  The court further wrote, “even though the charge contained the words ‘substantial factor,’ it adequately defined causation such that the jury would not misconstrue the burden of proof.”

The court concluded, “all Janssen’s issues on appeal are meritless” and affirmed the $4.2 million trial court verdict.

The case is April Czimmer v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case number 459 EDA 2014, in the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Posted in Blog, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Product Liability

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Santa Fe Agrees To a $36M Settlement With the Firms Responsible For Constructing Its Water Project

Santa Fe Agrees To a $36M Settlement With the Firms Responsible For Constructing Its Water Project

The board of the Santa Fe city and county’s joint Buckman Direct Diversion agreed to a $36 million settlement last wee[Read More...]
Health Net Repaid $97.2M To Settle an Investigation Confirming It Over-Billed the U.S. For Veterans Care

Health Net Repaid $97.2M To Settle an Investigation Confirming It Over-Billed the U.S. For Veterans Care

A Rancho Cordova health insurance company has repaid $97.2 million to settle an investigation into inflated claims submitted [Read More...]
Sessions at the 2021 Trial Lawyers Summit

Sessions at the 2021 Trial Lawyers Summit

On May 4 - 7, 2021, The National Trial Lawyers will present the 10th annual Trial Lawyers Summit, hosted at the Loews Mi[Read More...]
The U.S. Settles the 1800s Land Grabs With the Pembina Band of Chippewas for $59M

The U.S. Settles the 1800s Land Grabs With the Pembina Band of Chippewas for $59M

FARGO — A delegation that negotiated a treaty to obtain a large swath of the Red River Valley from the Ojibwe showed u[Read More...]
A Settlement With the Department of Agriculture Will Bring $715M in Food Stamps To Pennsylvania Households

A Settlement With the Department of Agriculture Will Bring $715M in Food Stamps To Pennsylvania Households

(Pittsburgh) — A legal settlement between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and two Pennsylvania women who are food st[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.