Ritalin class-action lawsuits

Previous lawsuits and history of class action

Beginning in the 1980s, a series of lawsuits were filed based on the perceived harmful side effects of Ritalin. John Coale, who had participated in one of these lawsuits, joined what became an ever larger contingent of lawyers involved in what was then a growing series of Ritalin class action lawsuits. In the late 1990s, there was a significant increase in production of Ritalin. A minority but vocal group of critics perceived that a crisis was on hand. Coale also expressed alarm, "They were giving this stuff away like candy". The Church of Scientology advocacy organization, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, and anti-psychiatry critics believed Ritalin to be highly dangerous and completely unnecessary. Coale seemed to share these beliefs as he stated the purpose of the lawsuit to be; "...to put [Ritalin] off the market." The St. Petersburg Times wrote at that time that Coale, like his wife Greta Van Susteren, was a practicing Scientologist. Richard Scruggs, like John Coale, and a few other lawyers who participated in the Ritalin class action lawsuits, had previously helped win a landmark settlement from the asbestos and tobacco industries, Ritalin was to be the next major battleground. Scruggs would lead and also become a spokesman for the plaintiffs. He asserted the Ritalin defendants, "manufactured a disease"...and "it has been grossly over-prescribed. It is a huge risk." Peter Breggin who is a noted psychiatrist and industry critic, was hired as a medical consultant by the firm and was also involved as a consultant in the other lawsuits.

The first class action was filed in Texas by the law firm Waters & Kraus in 2000. They created a webpage called Ritalinfraud.com which had an online form to seek additional participants in class action lawsuits. According to Breggin, plaintiff Andy Waters had previously read his book Talking back to Ritalin before filing his lawsuit. The firm believed that the improper conduct of Novartis rivaled the improper conduct of the tobacco and asbestos industries and that the drug company could be liable for billions of dollars. The firm claimed that Novartis specifically took the following steps to dramatically increase the sale of Ritalin.

1. Actively promoting and supporting the concept that a significant percentage of children have a "disease" which required narcotic treatment/therapy;
2. Actively promoting Ritalin as the "drug of choice" to treat children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD:
3. Actively supporting groups such as defendant CHADD, both financially and with other means, so that such organizations would promote and support (as a supposed neutral party) the ever-increasing implementation of ADD/ADHD diagnoses as well as directly increasing Ritalin sales;
4. Distributing misleading sales and promotional literature to parents, schools and other interested persons in a successful effort to further increase the number of diagnoses and the number of persons prescribed Ritalin.