No one can be all that happy with how the Accutane mass tort
proceeding has played out in New Jersey. We have no involvement in
that proceeding, but we have monitored it from afar, and it has
been extraordinarily contentious. The rub is that the parties
have very little to show for the effort. The latest shoe
dropped last week when the New Jersey Appellate Division vacated
(again) a jury verdict in favor of an Accutane plaintiff. The
unpublished opinion in McCarrell v. Hoffmann-La Roche,
Inc., No. A-4481-12T1, 2017 WL 1683187 (N.J. App. Div. May 2,
2017), is interesting, both in its treatment of expert opinion and
evidence on causation under Alabama law.
But before we get to that, let's review very briefly what
has come before. When plaintiffs first started suing in earnest
over Accutane, they alleged a variety of injuries, including
psychiatric conditions, birth defects, kidney disorders, vision
problems, and musculoskeletal problems. There has been
