Facts

In September 2005, plaintiff Karen Robinson, age 38, ingested three doses of over-the-counter Children's Motrin over a three-day period for a headache and fever. By the third day, she was rushed to the emergency room and eventually diagnosed with Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), a severe skin reaction that causes an individual's skin to burn off, as well as severe injuries to the eyes, mouth, and genitalia.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that despite knowing for decades that ibuprofen-based products such as Children's Motrin could cause TEN and its less severe version, Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS), McNeil Consumer Healthcare failed to place a warning on the over-the-counter Children's Motrin label to alert consumers to the possibility of a reaction such as TEN or SJS. As such, Robinson was unaware of the potential reaction that could occur. McNeil has indicated for years on their prescription labeling for Children's Motrin that the medication could potentially cause TEN and SJS. However, in 1995 McNeil made the decision to sell Children's Motrin as an over-the-counter medication for children, and in their over-the-counter labeling they chose to not include any warning of the consequences of either of these terrible diseases, TEN or SJS.

Injuries

Robinson spent approximately one month in the hospital, mostly in the burn unit, and over 60 percent of her skin was burned off of her body. She has lost vision in her left eye, and will probably lose total vision in her right eye.

Result

The jury found that defendant Johnson & Johnson was not negligent, but determined that McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a Division of McNeil-PPC Inc. was negligent, and that the negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The jury found Robinson suffered $3.5 million in damages, but also found that Robinson was contributorily negligent for continuing to take the product after the first symptoms appeared. Thus, judgment was entered for the defendants.

Other Information

Since this case was tried under Virginia law, the finding that Robinson was contributorily negligent bars any recovery. Virginia is one of the few states that still hold that any finding of contributory negligence by the plaintiff, however slight, will completely bar a plaintiff from recovery.

Deliberation

seven hours