A Louisiana federal judge has granted McNeil Consumer Healthcare judgment as a matter of law on failure-to-warn claims asserted in a Children’s Motrin Stevens Johnson Syndrome lawsuit. In a May 5 order, U.S. District Judge Jane T. Milazzo found the plaintiff, Keisha Hunt, failed to present evidence showing that her decision to give her daughter Children’s Motrin would have been changed had she been provided with a different warning about the risk of getting the life-threatening disease from the over-the-counter medication.

Hunt alleges in the SJS lawsuit that her daughter suffered personal injury on Feb. 4, 2010, after ingesting Children’s Motrin — a nonprescription drug manufactured by McNeil Consumer Healthcare. The active ingredient in Children’s Motrin is ibuprofen. Hunt claims Children’s Motrin caused her daughter to contract Stevens Johnson Syndrome and/or Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SJS/TEN).

Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) is an autoimmune disease. Autoimmune diseases or reactions are situations wherein the body attacks itself, using the immune system it usually uses to fight off infection. In SJS, the body attacks its own skin, causing a painful rash, which escalates to blisters, then sores, and finally ulcers. The damage can spread to the surface of the internal organs and the eyes. In some cases, it can even prove fatal. The reaction is almost always triggered by various medications, including ibuprofen.

Hunt filed Stevens Johnson Syndrome lawsuit under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), alleging Children’s Motrin contains inadequate warnings of potential health problems.

The LPLA provides the exclusive remedy against manufacturers in a products liability action. The LPLA has four elements: (1) A plaintiff must prove “that the defendant is a manufacturer of the product; (2) that the [plaintiff’s] damage was proximately caused by a characteristic of the product; (3) that this characteristic made the product ‘unreasonably dangerous;’ and (4) that the [plaintiff’s] damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product by the [plaintiff] or someone else.”

McNeil moved to dismiss the Children’s Motrin SJS lawsuit for failure to prove causation, and the motion was granted in part. They re‐urged the motions again at close of evidence, but the court denied and submitted the SJS lawsuit to jury trial. However, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, so the case was declared a mistrial. The judgment fell to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 50 allows the court to enter judgment as a matter of law when a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial. “In order to survive a Rule 50 motion, the non‐moving party must establish a conflict of substantial evidence for each element of his or her claim.” According to the judge, Hunt failed to do so.

In her Stevens Johnson Syndrome lawsuit, Hunt explained that “she trusted Children’s Motrin, that she had been using it for years on her three minor children, and that none of her children had ever suffered an adverse reaction until [her daughter’s] injuries in 2010.”

In her order, Judge Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana said Hunt’s daughter “undoubtedly suffered horrific injury. Unfortunately, Plaintiff has failed to establish a conflict of substantial evidence for an essential element of her claim.” As a result, Milazzo entered judgment in favor of the Defendant.

The Stevens Johnson Syndrome lawsuit is Keisha Hunt v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Case No: 11-457 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.