Man Awarded $48.1M in Motrin Lawsuit

Los Angeles - A jury today awarded $48.1 million to a Westchester man with a rare, severe skin disorder that he said he acquired by taking the pain reliever Motrin, which he maintained did not have adequate warnings regarding potential side effects.

The Los Angeles Superior Court panel began deliberating Sept. 26 in 22-year-old Christopher Trejo's negligence and design defect case. Jurors had to restart deliberations three times because some members of the panel were excused during the course of the closed-door discussions.

Trejo was not present when the verdict was read, but his mother, Naara Silver, fought back tears as jurors congratulated her while departing the courtroom.

Trejo filed his lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court in September 2008 against Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Consumer Healthcare. Johnson & Johnson holds the Motrin trademark and is the parent company of McNeil, which manufactures, sells and distributes Motrin. Johnson & Johnson also receives a financial benefit from sale of non-prescription Motrin and maintains an integral role in its marketing, the jury found.

Attorney Brian Witzer, on behalf of Trejo, said the verdict is the largest he's won in more than three decades of practicing law.

"I consider it a grand slam, for both the plaintiffs' bar and for consumers of over-the-counter products," Witzer said. "It was a really great vindication for this young man."

Witzer had recommended an award of about $102 million. He said Johnson & Johnson has a net worth of $64 billion and McNeil about $8.8 billion.

Defense attorney Thomas Pulliam declined to comment on the verdict. However, in court, he won a hold on a final judgment pending his clients' chance to appeal. He and other lawyers also told Judge Robert O'Brien that they believed portions of the verdict were inconsistent.

Pulliam told jurors during final arguments that Trejo's attorneys did not prove that their client's disorder, toxic epidermal necrolysis, was caused by Motrin, an ibuprofen product.

"The evidence shows Motrin is anything but dangerous. It's an extremely safe drug," Pulliam told the jury.

The panel awarded $21.1 million to Trejo for pain and suffering and another $11.4 million for lost earnings and medical expenses. The panel additionally assessed $8.79 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson and $6.8 million against McNeil.

Trejo maintained that taking Motrin for less than a week in October 2005 while living in his native Honduras caused his condition, in which the skin is covered with lesions from an allergic reaction, usually from medications.

Trejo, who now has legal residency in the United States, testified he was 16 when he took the Motrin to help relieve pain he suffered from playing soccer and also to alleviate a fever.

Silver testified she lived in California at the time and that she bought the analgesic in Los Angeles. She said she sent the Motrin to her grandmother in Honduras to help with the woman's arthritic condition.

Trejo said he obtained the Motrin from that same bottle and found relief as his aches from playing soccer and his fever eased over a period of about four days.

"That's why I decided to keep taking the Motrin because it indeed was helping me," he testified.

He said he took the following Monday off from school. The next day, matters changed for the worse, he said.

"I woke up Tuesday morning exhausted, my legs were tired, I was (feverish)," he said. "This was the first time I could feel something in my mouth."

Trejo said the objects in his mouth were blood-filled blisters and that one of them broke.

"That's when I pretty much went crazy and asked my grandmother to take me to a doctor," he testified.

He said he recalls little about the time he spent in a Honduran hospital before being taken to another in Texas after his mother flew to Honduras from Los Angeles to be with him.

In 2006, a year after Trejo took Motrin, the bottle labels added side effect warnings about skin reddening, rashes and blisters as part of new U.S. Food and Drug Administration-ordered advisories regarding ibuprofen usage.

Trejo said the new labels would have affected his decision to use Motrin had they been in place in 2005.

"If the label mentioned blisters, I would not have taken the drug," he testified.

Trejo said he had previously suffered painful blisters playing soccer and did not want that experience again. He also said he was conscious about his appearance and would have been reluctant to go to school with rashes on his skin, particularly his face.