A New Jersey jury earlier today found the drugmaker failed to adequately warn an Alabama man of the risk of bowel disease associated with its acne med and awarded him $2.5 million in damages. The jury also found that the failure to warn was a major contributing reason he contracted the bowel disease and awarded an additional $119,000 to cover medical expenses.

The trial was the first of about 400 U.S. lawsuits involving Accutane, which has been on the market since 1982, and Roche believes it has significant grounds to appeal. “Notwithstanding the verdict, the cause of inflammatory bowel disease remains unknown and there is no reliable scientific evidence that Accutane causes inflammatory bowel disease,” the company insists.

In considering New Jersey state consumer fraud charges, the state court jury found for Roche, saying the drugmaker didn’t misrepresent or conceal Accutane’s bowel risks prior to June 1995. Andrew McCarrell, a 36-year-old computer manager, said he had undergone multiple surgeries, including having his colon removed, after taking the drug in 1995. His symptoms included chronic diarrhea and incontinence, according to court documents.

“It’s a huge result for the broader litigation,” McCarrell’s attorney Dave Buchanan says. “It bodes well for the 400 other Accutane cases.”

McCarrell, who has three children ages 10 months to 7 years old, said after the verdict that he will now be able to afford better medical treatment and to take time off from work, unpaid if necessary, to deal with his condition. “I’m ecstatic,” he told Reuters. “I hope this means (other plaintiffs) will finally get some justice. They deserve it just as much as I do. Hopefully, this will just be the start of getting them some relief.”

Jurors interviewed following the verdict said they believed Roche should have done more testing of the drug after it was on the market and before McCarrell began using the medicine. “We would like to send a message to Roche to clearly do further testing and evaluation,” says Cynthia Spivey, a 45-year-old casino worker. “They should have done way more testing in 11 years.”

Mark Schoettler, 48, says the jury had agreed there was no consumer fraud because there did not seem to be a deliberate attempt by the company to deceive or conceal the nature of the product. “It was benign neglect, not malice.”