Topamax Lawsuits

Lawsuits blame Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. for birth defects in babies born to women who took Topamax while pregnant. Claims include Janssen’s failure to warn women and their doctors about the drug’s risks. The U.S. Department of Justice has also accused Janssen of illegally promoting Topamax for off-label uses.

Haley Powell was prescribed Topamax for migraines and hand tremors. She had been taking the prescription drug for more than a year when she became pregnant with her son, Brayden Gurley, in 2007. Brayden was born with a cleft lip. The birth defect also caused nasal malformations and will require him to have at least five surgeries before he turns 21.

April Czimmer also took Topamax for migraines. She took the drug from August 2006 to February 2007. Her son, Blake, was born with a cleft lip and cleft palate in September 2007. Though Czimmer stopped taking Topamax during her pregnancy, she had used the medicine during her first trimester, which is when the Centers for Disease Control says oral clefts occur.

These women are among the hundreds of people who sued Janssen over allegations that the company failed to adequately warn that its drug Topamax causes birth defects.

Topamax, also known by its generic name topiramate, belongs to a category of drugs known as anticonvulsants. Doctors prescribe it to treat epilepsy and to prevent migraine headaches, as well as for off-label, or unapproved, uses. Janssen Pharmaceuticals (formerly Ortho-McNeil) is a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary.

FDA Requires Birth Defect Warning

Families of babies born with birth defects began filing lawsuits against Janssen in 2011 — the same year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required Topamax’s makers to add a warning in the drug’s prescribing information highlighting the increased risk of cleft palate and cleft lip.

The new warnings were based on the FDA’s analysis of data from the North American Antiepileptic (NAAED) Pregnancy Registry, a surveillance effort that monitors the safety of seizure medications. The data showed that the risk of an infant being born with a cleft lip or palate was 21 times greater when a woman took topiramate during her first trimester of pregnancy.

The new data also elevated Topamax from a pregnancy Category C drug, which has not been shown to be harmful to human fetuses, to a Category D drug, which has “positive evidence of human fetal risk.” Generally speaking, Category D drugs should be used by expectant mothers only when there are no better alternatives and benefits outweigh the risks.

Cases were filed under a mass tort program in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Brayden Gurley’s family sued, as did Czimmer on behalf of her son. By 2013, more than 130 cases alleging that Janssen had failed to warn consumers of the risks of birth defects were pending in Philadelphia’s Topamax docket.

At the time, Topamax had been on the market for 15 years without such warnings. From January 2007 through December 2010, pharmacies dispensed about 32.3 million topiramate prescriptions, and about 4.3 million patients filled topiramate prescriptions from U.S. pharmacies.

Those who sued Janssen argued that women of childbearing age and their doctors should have been warned about the risks, especially given that Topamax may decrease the effectiveness of contraceptives.

With information about drug risks, women and health care providers can consider other health care options, such as different epilepsy or migraine treatments, plaintiffs argued. By not warning them about the drug’s dangers, Janssen deprived them of this choice.

Lawsuits pointed to the fact that the company failed to issue adequate warnings despite evidence of increased birth defect risks. Plaintiffs maintained that cleft palate and cleft lip may require surgery and other costly medical treatment that could have been prevented if the drugmaker had not neglected its legal duty to warn about risks.

Multimillion Dollar Topamax Verdicts

In late 2013, the first Topamax birth defect trials in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas resulted in winning verdicts for the plaintiffs.

At trial, Janssen argued that instances of birth defects cannot necessarily be linked to Topamax because oral clefts are a common congenital birth defect affecting thousands of newborns annually. The company also argued that Topamax’s labels adequately reflected what it knew at the time of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

However, plaintiffs argued that the company knew about the birth defect risks as early as 1997 but failed to warn doctors and even concealed safety reports in 2003 and 2005.

Following a 12-day trial, a jury rendered a verdict in Czimmer’s favor, ordering Janssen to pay $4 million on her claim. Brayden Gurley’s family was awarded $11.7 million. Both awards included compensation for future medical expenses and pain and suffering.

Status of Topamax Birth Defect Lawsuits

The juries that delivered the 2013 Topamax verdicts ultimately found that Janssen failed to warn doctors about the full extent of Topamax’s birth defect risks. They also determined that the company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries.

Janssen appealed both verdicts and lost in 2015. In Czimmer’s case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s verdict and rejected a subsequent bid from Janssen to reconsider. A judicial panel in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania also upheld the trial court’s decision in the case brought by Brayden Gurley’s family.

Meanwhile, parent company J&J agreed to settle 76 other Topamax cases pending in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The court closed the Topamax mass tort program on March 17, 2016.

Topamax Maker Pays $81 Million Fine for Off-Label Promotion

Topamax makers have also paid fines for improperly promoting the drug to treat bipolar disorder, drug and alcohol dependency, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and a number of other psychiatric conditions.

The drug’s only approved uses are for treating seizure disorders and preventing migraine headaches. Off-label promotion of pharmaceuticals is illegal.

A federal investigation prompted by whistleblowers revealed that the makers of Topamax paid doctors as much as $3,000 a day to accompany sales representatives on visits with other physicians to promote off-label use of Topamax. Court records show that one physician participating in the “Doctors-for-a-Day” program received $500,000 for 200 meetings with doctors.

Company documents show that drug executives told physicians that their colleagues “can talk to you about things I can’t talk to you about,” Bloomberg News reported.

In 2010, under a plea agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, the manufacturers admitted to misbranding and illegally marketing the drug for unapproved uses and agreed to pay more than $81 million in fines.

Please seek the advice of a medical professional before making health care decisions.

Related Pages
Emily Miller
Written By Emily Miller Editor

Emily Miller is an award-winning journalist with 7 years of professional experience writing and editing content for reputable media organizations across the U.S. She also has 13 years of personal experience as a patient living with Crohn’s disease. Her coverage of U.S. prescription drug prices for Drugwatch has been published or cited by news outlets, including The Hill, Fox Business and United Press International. Some of her qualifications include:

  • Society of Professional Journalists and The Alliance of Professional Health Advocates member
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Literacy certificates
  • 2016 Florida Society of News Editors third place winner in Breaking News
Edited By
Kevin Connolly
Kevin Connolly Managing Editor

12 Cited Research Articles

  1. Czimmer v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceutical, No. 1105-03459, Pa. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Co.
  2. FDA.gov. (2011, March 4). FDA Drug Safety Communication: Risk of oral clefts in children born to mothers taking Topamax (topiramate). Retrieved from  https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm245085.htm
  3. FDA.gov. (2017, May). Highlights of Prescribing Information. Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/020505s057_020844s048lbl.pdf
  4. Gurley v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceutical, No. 110502251, Pa. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Co.
  5. Mealey’s. (2013, October 31). $4 Million Awarded In 1st Pa. Trial Alleging Birth Defect From Topamax Epilepsy Drug. Retrieved from  http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/litigation/b/litigation-blog/archive/2013/10/31/4-million-awarded-in-1st-pa-trial-alleging-birth-defect-from-topamax-epilepsy-drug.aspx
  6. Pearson, S. (2013, October 15). Janssen’s Topamax Users Blame Drug for Birth Defects. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-15/janssen-s-topamax-users-blame-drug-for-birth-defects
  7. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. (2015, March 16). Appeal from the Judgment Entered December 5, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No.: May Term 2011 No. 02251. Retrieved from  http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A30036-14o%20-%201021411283232075.pdf
  8. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. (2015, August 20). Appeal from the Judgment Entered January 2, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No.: May Term 2011 No. 3459. Retrieved from  http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A30037-14do.pdf
  9. The Philadelphia Courts. (n.d.). IN RE: Topamax Litigation. Retrieved from  https://fjdefile.phila.gov/dockets/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=110602131
  10. Tulane University School of Medicine. (2016, January 24). FDA Pregnancy Risk Categories. Retrieved from http://tmedweb.tulane.edu/pharmwiki/doku.php/fda_pregnancy_risk_factors
  11. U.S. Department of Justice. (2010, May 21). ORTHO-McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC PLEADS GUILTY TO ILLEGAL PROMOTION OF TOPOMAX AND IS SENTENCED TO CRIMINAL
  12. U.S. Department of Justice. (2010, April 29). Two Johnson & Johnson Subsidiaries to Pay Over $81 Million to Resolve Allegations of Off-Label Promotion of Topamax [Press release]. Retrieved from  http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/April/10-civ-500.html
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with Wilson and Peterson, LLP or one of its trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Wilson and Peterson, LLP funds Drugwatch because it supports the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices.

(888) 645-1617