March 24, 2011

Johnson & Johnson asks California Supreme Court to review case allowing punitive damages for ibuprofen warnings

Johnson & Johnson has filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court in Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court, the case in which the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) held that punitive damages could be imposed on Johnson & Johnson for failing to include enough details in its warning labels for ibuprofen.  The labels warned about the possibility of severe allergic reactions, but didn't specifically warn about skin reddening, blisters, or rash.  You can view the Supreme Court's on-line docket to track the status of the petition.  As I said in earlier posts, the Court of Appeal's opinion allowing plaintiffs to proceed with a punitive damages claim, in a case that seems marginal at best on the issue of liability, is inconsistent with California's stringent requirements for the proof necessary to recover punitive damages.

Related posts:

Court of Appeal publishes opinion on punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson for ibuprofen warnings

Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court; plaintiffs can seek punitive damages for incomplete ibuprofen warnings

No comments:

Post a Comment