Georges v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 349

JUDGMENT ON A JURY VERDICT by Judge S. James Otero: Plaintiff Adriann Georges recover from the defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation the amount of $2,162,000. with post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate and costs. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

1
2

September 24, 2013

3

VC
P

4
5

JS-6

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADRIANN GEORGES,

12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-05207-SJO-VBK
Assigned to S. James Otero, Courtroom 1

13

v.

14

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS
CORPORATION,

15

JUDGMENT ON A JURY VERDICT

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This action was tried by a jury with Judge S. James Otero presiding, and the
jury has rendered a verdict.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff Adriann Georges recover from the
defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation the amount of $2,162,000. with
post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate and costs.
The jury’s award of $2,162,000. is comprised of the following components as
found by the jury in response to specific questions addressed to them by the
Court:
1.

“Did Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation fail to provide an adequate
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4

warning to Mrs. Georges’ prescribing physician or oral and maxillofacial surgeon
of the potential risk of a substantial danger that were known or knowable at the time
of distribution in light of generally accepted scientific and medical knowledge?”
Jury: “Yes.”

5

2.

6

Jury: “Yes.”

7
8
9
10
11

3.

14

maxillofacial surgeon of the risks of Aredia and Zometa that Novartis knew or
reasonably should have known to exist?”
Jury: “Yes.”
4.

17
18

Jury: “Yes.”
5.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

“Did Novartis intentionally fail to disclose an important fact that was

known only to Novartis and that Mrs. Georges’ prescribing physician or oral and
maxillofacial surgeon could not have discovered?”
Jury: “Yes.”

19
20

“Was the negligent failure to warn a substantial factor in causing her

harm?”

15
16

“Did Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation negligently fail to provide

an adequate warning to Mrs. Georges’ prescribing physician or oral and

12
13

“Was the failure to warn a substantial factor in causing her harm?”

6.

“Did Novartis intend to deceive her physicians by concealing the

fact?”
Jury: “Yes.”
7.

“Did Mrs. Georges and her physicians reasonably rely on the

deception?”
Jury: “Yes.”
8.

“Was the concealment by Novartis a substantial factor in causing her

harm?”
Jury: “Yes.”
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

9.

“What amount, if any, do you award to fully justify and fairly

compensate Mrs. Georges for all of her
a)
Jury:

past economic losses resulting from defendant’s conduct?”
“$250,000.”

b)

“past [non-] (sic) economic losses resulting from defendant’s

conduct?”
Jury:

“$951,000.”
c)

“future economic losses resulting from defendant’s conduct?”

Jury:

“$200,000.”

d)

“future non-economic losses resulting from defendant’s

conduct?”
Jury:

“$761,000.”

The jury was polled following the verdict and all members of the jury
affirmed the verdict as presented and read. See 4/24/13 Tr. Tran. at pp. 4-8.

16
17
18

Date: September 24, 2013

19
20
21
22

________________________________________
HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
-3-