Philadelphia, PA — The highly contentious Risperdal litigation, once a burgeoning mass tort in Philadelphia’s courts with a staggering 7,000 cases just five years ago, has now dwindled to a mere five. The substantial decrease in active lawsuits follows a period of intensive settlements where approximately 6,000 cases were resolved through a combined arrangement that could amount to as much as $1.1 billion.
Law firms spearheading these negotiations include Pennsylvania-based Kline & Specter and Sheller PC, along with Arnold & Itkin of Texas, who have collectively notched several high-profile awards. A notable instance being the initial $8 billion verdict in 2019 which was subsequently reduced on appeal to nearly $7 million. Now, Arnold & Itkin is overseeing the settlement administration.
Settlement details disclose an average payout of about $97,000 per claim, albeit prior to the deduction of attorney fees and case-related expenses. This figure is derived from details extracted from a settlement offer detailed in documents reviewed during the process. Although comparisons are difficult across different litigations for variability, such payouts starkly contrast with other historic settlements like Vioxx and pelvic mesh litigations.
The current phase of the Risperdal settlement involves processing grouped claims, approximately 800 at a time, and it’s currently on its seventh group. Claims are processed on a voluntary basis, with an option for claimants to proceed to court if dissatisfied with the settlement offers. Thus far, records suggest a high acceptance rate, with more than 5,600 out of a potential 6,000 claimants consenting to the settlement terms—a compliance rate hovering around 94%.
Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Rachelle Harz, now mediating and overseeing mass tort allocations, states that such acceptance figures are exceptional. “Ninety percent is good. Very good,” Harz indicated. Yet, some claimants continue to hold out or are pending eligibility confirmation, expressing frustration and confusion over the lengthy settlement proceedings.
Among the discontented are families who believe the settlements insufficiently compensate for their sufferings. One such case involves a family awarded roughly $95,000 before fees, who finds the amount inadequate to cover surgery costs for their son, afflicted with severe autism and gynecomastia—an abnormal growth of breasts in males, a side effect of Risperdal. The antipsychotic drug, initially prescribed for various behavioral disorders, was linked to this condition among many young boys and men, thrusting it into legal scrutiny.
Kline and Itkin, in a statement, argued that the settlement implementation has been a success story, “providing significant compensation to thousands of claimants after a decade of hard-fought and ultimately successful litigation.” They contend that complaints from a few claimants represent a very small fraction of the overall group, many of whom they say have benefited from the settlement arrangement.
However, criticism remains. Some claimants articulate ongoing challenges in communication with the law firms, which reportedly sometimes use call centers to handle client interactions, causing distress and mistrust among those already navigating the complexities of the mass tort system.
Despite these challenges, legal experts assert that the mass tort approach, though imperfect, prevents the court system from becoming overloaded and allows for earlier and more standardized resolutions in situations where individual lawsuits might be less feasible or too costly to pursue alone.
Harz notes the inevitable difficulties of explaining the judicial and settlement processes to clients, particularly when results might not meet their expectations or immediate financial needs. Yet, the overarching goal remains clear: to achieve the fairest and most balanced resolution reachable under the complicated scope of mass litigation. This ongoing saga of Risperdal’s legal battles underscores not only the intricate balance within mass tort settlements but also the profound personal impacts of pharmaceutical side effects on patients’ lives.