IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-IA-00440-SCT
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC., AND
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL.
v.
HATTIE JACKSON, ET AL.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/25/2002
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: DONNA BROWN JACOBS
CHRISTY D. JONES
JOHN C. HENEGAN
ROBERT L. JOHNSON
L. CARL HAGWOOD
CLIFFORD B. AMMONS
ROBERT K. UPCHURCH
WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, III
JULIETTE VERONICA WILSON
AL NUZZO
LAURA G. McKINLEY
MARTIN R. JELLIFFE
THOMAS M. LOUIS
ANITA K. MODAK-TRURAN
KARI LOUISE FOSTER
MICHAEL BRADFORD HEWES
DAVID W. UPCHURCH
JOSIAH DENNIS COLEMAN
JASON EDWARD DARE
B. WAYNE WILLIAMS
DAN W. WEBB
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: WILLIAM B. GILL, III
ELIZABETH ANN SANTANGINI
JAMES M. PRIEST, JR.
JOHN F. HAWKINS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/30/2004
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE COBB, P.J., CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ.
DICKINSON, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Hattie Jackson and thirty other Mississippi Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit on July 19, 2002, in the
Circuit Court of Holmes County, Mississippi, alleging injuries they claim were caused by the prescription
medication Propulsid. The suit was filed against Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. (“Janssen”), Johnson &
Johnson(“Johnson”), 27 prescribing physicians, and 15 drug stores/pharmacies (collectively “Defendants”).
Only three Plaintiffs are from Holmes County. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages from all the
Defendants and punitive damages from Defendants Janssen and Johnson.
¶2. On September 27, 2002, Janssen and Johnson filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue for
Separate Trials alleging that joinder was improper under M.R.C.P. 20. They requested the court sever
the non-resident plaintiffs and transfer each plaintiff to the appropriate venue for separate trials.
¶3. On November 25, 2002, the trial court denied the Defendants’ Motion to Sever and Transfer for
Separate Trials. We granted Janssen and Johnson permission to appeal from that from that interlocutory
order. See M.R.A.P. 5.
FACTS1
¶4. Propulsid is a prescription medication manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., used to treat
gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Propulsid
for sale in the United States in July 1993, after 12 years of research and clinical testing and more than five
years of use in Europe by millions of patients. The 1993 package insert noted that there had been rare
1
These facts are taken verbatim from the Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.
2d 1092, 1095 (Miss. 2004).
2
reports of tachycardia (rapid heartbeats) in patients taking Propulsid, but no incidents involving serious
injury or death. In late 1994, Janssen received two reports of patients who experienced a potentially fatal
heart arrhythmia known as "torsades de pointes." These patients were also taking the drug ketoconazole,
an antifungal medication. After a drug interaction study was performed, a new package insert was issued
in February 1995, warning against taking Propulsid with this and other medications. During the seven years
after FDA approval for sale in the U.S., the package insert for Propulsid was revised five times: in February
1995, October 1995, June 1998, May 1999 and January 2000. Along with the new package inserts,
Janssen sent hundreds of thousands of "Dear Doctor" letters to inform physicians and pharmacists of the
revised safety information. During the period from 1993 to 2000, there were reports of about 300 cardiac
events among the approximately ten million patients given Propulsid in the United States. Due to the
potential seriousness of such an event, Janssen decided to make Propulsid available only through an
investigational limited access program in May 2000. Janssen claims that this decision to withdraw Propulsid
fromcommercial distribution has sparked thousands of claims across the country that Propulsid has caused
all manner of injuries.
ANALYSIS
¶5. The issues raised in the case sub judice are the same issues raised and discussed in Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So. 2d 1092 (Miss. 2004). In Armond, we determined that
joinder was improper and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to sever and
transfer. Thus, Armond controls the disposition of all issues raised in the case sub judice. Accordingly,
we find that the plaintiffs in the case sub judice do not share a single, distinct litigable event and may not be
joined.
CONCLUSION
3
¶6. For these reasons, we reverse the circuit court's order denying the defendants' motion to sever and
transfer for separate trials, and we remand this case for severance of all claims against defendants with no
connection to the Holmes County plaintiffs, and we instruct the trial court to 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. We further instruct the trial court to sever the improperly joined Holmes
County plaintiffs for separate trials.
¶7. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., AND CARLSON, J., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., CONCURS
IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
WALLER, P.J., DIAZ, GRAVES AND RANDOLPH, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
4
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Hattie Jackson
Combined Opinion