Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., et al. v. Armond, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-IA-00398-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-IA-00398 ; 2003-M-00398

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-19-2004
Opinion Author: Cobb, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Permissive joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a)
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Easley, J., Concurs in Part. Graves, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Easley, J.
Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J., and Diaz, J.
Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-24-2003
Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court
Judge: Billy Joe Landrum
Disposition: The defendants filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue for Separate Trials.
Case Number: 2002-4-CV2

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Joseph L. Faison, M.D., Edward Quinones, M.D., James Riser, M.D., and Billy Wansley, et al.




DONNA BROWN JACOBS CHRISTY D. JONES JOHN C. HENEGAN MICHAEL BRADFORD HEWES ANITA K. MODAK-TRURAN KARI LOUISE FOSTER RICHARD B. GOETZ CHARLES C. LIFLAND WALTER ESTES DELLINGER ROBERT L. JOHNSON, III AMANDA CLEARMAN WADDELL J. ROBERT RAMSAY JOHN LEWIS HINKLE AL NUZZO JOE R. COLINGO STEPHEN WALKER BURROW



 

Appellee: Colantha Armond, et al. RICHARD ARTHUR FREESE MERRIDA COXWELL RICHARD O. BURSON  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Personal injury - Permissive joinder - M.R.C.P. 20(a)

Summary of the Facts: Colantha Armond and 55 other Mississippi plaintiffs filed suit in the Jones County Circuit Court for injuries they claimed were caused by a prescription medication, Propulsid. Named as defendants were the makers of Propulsid, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, and its New Jersey based parent corporation Johnson and Johnson; 42 Mississippi physicians who allegedly prescribed Propulsid to the various plaintiffs; and South Central Regional Medical Center. Armond and the medical center are the only Jones County residents. The defendants filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue for Separate Trials. The court denied that motion as well as defendants’ oral motion for certification of interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ petition for interlocutory appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Janssen argues that the 55 non-Jones County plaintiffs were improperly joined under M.R.C.P. 20 because plaintiffs’ claims do not meet the requirement of Rule 20 that they must arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Rather, there are 56 separate and individual transactions, each composed of individual facts and circumstances surrounding each patient’s medical condition and history, and each doctor’s decision to prescribe Propulsid to the patient. The record shows that the 56 plaintiffs in this case have different medical histories; allege different injuries at different times; ingested different amounts of Propulsid over different periods of time; received different advice from 42 different doctors who, in turn, received different information about the risks associated with the medication via six different warning labels utilized during the time covered by this lawsuit, and who each had his or her own reasons to prescribe Propulsid for the patients. Rule 20(a) is not unlimited but imposes two specific requisites to the joinder of parties: (1) a right to relief must be asserted by or against each plaintiff or defendant relating to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence; and (2) some question of law or fact common to all the parties will arise in the action. A joint trial in this case would require 56 different fact situations, 56 sets of medical histories, and 56 sets of witnesses and testimony, all in addition to addressing the myriad causation and other products liability issues. Instead of fostering efficiency, such a trial would unavoidably confuse the jury and irretrievably prejudice the defendants. There is no litigable event common to all the parties. Also, propulsid claims arise from an “immature tort” which involves novel and unsettled scientific, legal, and factual issues. Additionally, more accurate and fair results would be obtained if each plaintiff’s case included only the warning label in effect at the time of the alleged injury, in order to determine the true nature of the manufacturers’ conduct. In a joint trial, the multiple revised warning labels would be extremely prejudicial when admitted against the defendant. Each plaintiff has a unique medical history, and during the time frame involved in the 56 claims, there were five different warning inserts. Since the prescribing of the drug Propulsid by 42 different physicians to 56 different patients did not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, joinder unfairly prejudices the defendants. The trial court’s order is reversed and the case remanded for severance of all claims against defendants who have no connection with Armond. This would include all physicians who have not prescribed Propulsid to Armond. The court should transfer the severed cases to those jurisdictions in which each plaintiff could have brought his or her claims without reliance on another of the improperly joined plaintiffs.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court