Case Name: JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC., Johnson & Johnson and Yoshinobu Namihira, M.D. v. Bertha GRANT, et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2004-05-13
Citations: 873 So. 2d 100
Docket Number: No. 2003-IA-00174-SCT
Parties: JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC., Johnson & Johnson and Yoshinobu Namihira, M.D. v. Bertha GRANT, et al.
Judges: Before SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., and CARLSON, J.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 873
Pages: 100–103

Head Matter:
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC., Johnson & Johnson and Yoshinobu Namihira, M.D. v. Bertha GRANT, et al.
No. 2003-IA-00174-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 13, 2004.
Donna Brown Jacobs, Christy D. Jones, John C. Henegan, Robert L. Johnson, III, Jackson, Clifford C. Whitney, III, R.E. Parker, Jr., Vicksburg, attorneys for appellants.
James W. Nobles, Jr., Jackson, Angelo John Dorizas, Eugene Coursey Tullos, attorneys for appellees.
Before SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., and CARLSON, J.

Opinion:
CARLSON, Justice,
for the Court.
¶ 1. Bertha Grant and three other Mississippi plaintiffs, Sarah Rebecca Garner, Tony Keen, and Daisy James ("Plaintiffs"), filed suit in the Smith County Circuit Court alleging injuries they claimed were caused by the prescription medication, Propulsid. The suit was filed against the New Jersey-based manufacturer Janssen Pharmaeeutica, Inc.; its New Jersey-based corporate parent Johnson & Johnson; a Mississippi physician from Warren County, Dr. Yoshinobu Namihira; and a pharmaceutical salesperson from Rankin County, Eric Norsworthy. Only Grant is a resident of Smith County. Garner is a resident of Scott County, and Keen and James are residents of Warren County. Also Keen and James, the two Warren County residents, were the only two plaintiffs who were patients of Dr. Namihira, who is also a resident of Warren County. The plaintiffs sought to hold the defendants jointly and severally liable to each plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages.
¶ 2. On November 1, 2002, Janssen and Johnson & Johnson filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue for Separate Trials, arguing that joinder was improper under Miss. R. Civ. P. 20 and that venue was improper in Smith County. The trial court denied the motion as well as Jans-sen's and Johnson & Johnson's ore tenus motion for certification of interlocutory appeal. On April 3, 2003, this Court granted Janssen's and Johnson & Johnson's Petition for Interlocutory Appeal by Permission Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 5(a). Finding that joinder was improper and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to sever and transfer, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for severance and for a transfer of the severed cases to those jurisdictions in which each plaintiff could have brought his or her claims without reliance on another of the improperly joined plaintiffs.
FACTS
¶ 3. Propulsid is a prescription medication manufactured by Janssen Pharma-ceutica, Inc., used to treat gastroesopha-geal reflux disease (GERD). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Propulsid for sale in the United States in July 1993, after 12 years of research and clinical testing and more than five years of use in Europe by millions of patients. The 1993 package insert noted that there had been rare reports of tachycardia (rapid heartbeats) in patients taking Propulsid, but no incidents involving serious injury or death. In late 1994, Janssen received two reports of patients who experienced a potentially fatal heart arrhythmia known as "torsades de pointes." These patients were also taking the drug ketoconazole, an antifungal medication. After a drug interaction study was performed, a new package insert was issued in February 1995, warning against taking Propulsid with this and other medications. During the seven years after FDA approval for sale in the U.S., the package insert for Propulsid was revised five times: in February 1995, October 1995, June 1998, May 1999 and January 2000. Along with the new package inserts, Janssen sent hundreds of thousands of "Dear Doctor" letters to inform physicians and pharmacists of the revised safety information. During the period from 1993 to 2000, there were reports of about 300 cardiac events among the approximately ten million patients given Pro-pulsid in the United States. Due to the potential seriousness of such an event, Janssen decided to make Propulsid available only through an investigational limit ed access program in May 2000. Janssen claims that this decision to withdraw Pro-pulsid from commercial distribution has sparked thousands of claims across the country that Propulsid has caused all manner of injuries.
ANALYSIS
¶ 4. On February 19, 2004, this Court decided Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092 (Miss.2004). As in Armond, today's case is a products liability suit based on the adequacy of warnings which accompanied the medication, Propulsid. Armond controls the disposition of all issues raised in the case sub judice. In Armond we determined that joinder was improper and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to sever and transfer. Therefore, we reach the same conclusion here.
CONCLUSION
¶ 5. For these reasons, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for severance and for a transfer of the severed cases to those jurisdictions in which each plaintiff could have brought his or her claims without reliance on another of the improperly joined plaintiffs.
¶ 6. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., AND GRAVES, J., CONCUR. DICKINSON, J., CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
. These facts are taken verbatim from Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1095 (Miss.2004).