Methylphenidate is a psychostimulant drug considered a “Class II” controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 812; 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12.Google Scholar

Ciba-Geigy Corporation was the primary Ritalin maker and supplier in the United States from approximately 1955 through 1995. The merger of Ciba-Geigy with Sandoz created Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation in 1996. Since 1996, Novartis has been the drug's sole manufacturer and American supplier.Google Scholar

CHADD is an unincorporated and non-profit association that currently provides information for parents with children with ADHD and adults with the disorder.Google Scholar

Hernandez v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA (Texas Dist. Ct., [No. 2000-05-1888-D], filed May 1, 2000).Google Scholar

The plaintiffs must show that the defendants had a culpable state of mind called “scienter.” According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 526 (1979), a defendant acts with scienter if he (1) knew or believed that he was not telling the truth; (2) did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated or implied that he did; or (3) knew that he did not have the grounds for a statement that he stated or implied that he did.Google Scholar

Thus, the plaintiffs must show that they relied on the misrepresentation and that their reliance was justifiable.Google Scholar

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 525 (1979).Google Scholar

However, if the defendant simply fails to disclose a material fact, it is harder for the plaintiff to establish the requisite misrepresentation. In courts that follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 (1979), the general rule remains that there is almost never a misrepresentation when a plaintiff merely fails to disclose. Exceptions include matters that must be disclosed because of a fiduciary relationship.Google Scholar

The complaint does not indicate how much money was spent.Google Scholar

Hernandez and Butler also claim that Novartis continually misrepresented the efficacy of Ritalin, leading them to believe that using the drug would improve academic performance. Hernandez, supra note 4.Google Scholar

More specifically, the plaintiffs listed cardiovascular problems ranging from palpitations to cardiac arrest; central nervous system problems ranging from agitation and irritability to psychosis with hallucinations and depression; and gastrointestinal problems ranging from mild ailments to vomiting and nausea.Google Scholar

Hernandez, supra note 4.Google Scholar

The actual donation amount may be in dispute, but the plaintiffs' complaint states that $748,000 was donated from 1991 to 1994. Id.Google Scholar

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Press Release (October 25, 1995).Google Scholar

The plaintiff filed the class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He seeks to represent all California residents who used or purchased Ritalin. Notably, this plaintiff also brought a claim under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750, claiming that the defendants engaged in proscribed competitive practices. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants' misrepresentation of material facts concerning Ritalin and the failure to disclose risk-related information constitute deception under the Act. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (S.D. Cal. [No. 00 CV 1839], filed September 13, 2000).Google Scholar

“News reports,” Psychiatric News, 35, no. 19 (2000): 2.Google Scholar

Accardo, P., “Ritalin, Parents, and the Media,” Clinical Psychiatry News, 28, no. 10 (2000): 10.Google Scholar

Fulton, D., “Class Action Suits Over Ritalin Filed Against APA,” Clinical Psychiatry News, 28, no. 10 (2000): 1, 5.Google Scholar

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Quality Improvement, Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, “Diagnosis and Evaluation of the Child With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” Pediatrics, 105, no. 5 (2000): 1158–70.Google Scholar