## Facts

- A prescription drug, MER/29, was marketed to reduce cholesterol and was later linked to cataracts and other injuries, leading to its withdrawal and widespread litigation.
- Sidney Roginsky alleged he developed cataracts after taking MER/29 in Pennsylvania.
- Roginsky sued the manufacturer in federal court on diversity jurisdiction, with New York substantive law applied at trial.
- The case was tried to a jury on alternative theories of (a) negligence in testing/marketing and (b) fraud on the Food and Drug Administration, plus a separate claim for punitive damages.
- The jury found MER/29 was a proximate cause of Roginsky’s injuries and that the manufacturer was negligent and proximately caused the harm.
- The jury also found fraud on the FDA, awarded $17,500 in compensatory damages, and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages.
- The district court denied the manufacturer’s post-trial motion to set aside or reduce the punitive damages award; the manufacturer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New York law and on this record, punitive damages were available against a drug manufacturer based on alleged misconduct in testing, marketing, and regulatory submissions.
2. Whether admission of extensive evidence about testing, regulatory dealings, and other claims/injuries improperly influenced the jury on liability and damages.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings of causation and negligence supporting the compensatory award.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment awarding $17,500 in compensatory damages.
- The court reversed and set aside the $100,000 punitive damages award.
- The court concluded that, even assuming plaintiff-favorable views of the challenged proof, the record did not satisfy New York’s demanding standard for punitive damages in this context.
- The court declined to disturb the compensatory verdict based on evidentiary concerns, finding no reversible prejudice warranting a new trial on compensatory liability or damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, punitive damages serve punishment and deterrence and require aggravating misconduct beyond ordinary negligence, approaching intentional wrongdoing or a reckless, wanton disregard of known high risks.
- Proof supporting compensatory liability (causation and negligence) does not automatically justify punitive damages; the punitive standard is higher and requires qualitatively more culpable conduct.
- In mass-injury litigation arising from a single course of conduct, repetitive punitive awards raise fairness and administrability concerns, reinforcing judicial reluctance to extend punitive damages absent clear satisfaction of the heightened state-law standard.
- Appellate courts may uphold compensatory findings while vacating punitive damages when the compensatory proof is sufficient but the punitive threshold is not met.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the plaintiff’s evidence supported compensatory recovery for drug-related injuries but did not meet New York’s stringent requirements for punitive damages, particularly given the risk of repeated punishment through multiple punitive awards in widespread litigation.


Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 378 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1967)