New Jersey Judge Upholds $25 Million Accutane Settlement

A New Jersey judge has rejected Roche’s request for a new trial or reduction of a jury’s award of more than $25 million in damages for a man who filed the Accutane lawsuit after he developed severe inflammatory bowel disease from Accutane. After using Accutane for about four months in 1995 for treatment of Acne, McCarrell began experiencing stomach pain and diarrhea, which ultimately led to a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease like hundreds of other users who were not adequately warned about the potential Accutane side effects. McCarrell went on to have four surgeries over the next six years, including a total colectomy,

which removed his colon and rectum, and an ileostomy that resulted in his need to live with a colostomy bag for at least 4 1/2 years.

In an order issued earlier this week by Judge Carol Higbee, who is presiding over all Accutane lawsuits pending in New Jersey state court, the damages suffered by a plaintiff who experienced inflammatory bowel disease from Accutane were described as the “worst case of pain, suffering and loss of quality of life” she had ever heard described in her nearly two decades on the bench. McCarrell was originally one of the first Accutane suits to reach a jury in April 2007, resulting in a verdict of $2,619,000. However, that verdict was overturned on appeal when Roche convinced an appeals court that they should have been permitted to introduce testimony on the total number of Accutane users to put the number of adverse event reports into a larger context.

Following a second trial in January 2010, another New Jersey state court jury awarded McCarrell $159,540.19 to cover his medical bills and another $25 million in compensation for pain and suffering damages caused by long term side effects of Accutane. Roche challenged the second trial on several grounds, seeking yet another new trial or, in the alternative, a reduction in the damages awarded to McCarrell.In a 47 page opinion issued September 12, Judge Higbee denied Roche’s requests, indicating that while the award was more than she may have returned, she found no sense of “wrongness” in the jury’s award