From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Motus v. Pfizer Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 9, 2004
358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2004)

Summary

holding that "a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician"

Summary of this case from Armantrout v. Squibb (in re Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.)

Opinion

Nos. 02-55372, 02-55498.

Argued and Submitted October 10, 2003.

Filed February 9, 2004.

Jessica R. Dart, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford Schiavo, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee.

Pierce O'Donnell, O'Donnell Shaeffer, Los Angeles, CA; Malcolm E. Wheeler, Wheeler, Trigg Kennedy, Denver, CO, for the defendant-appellee/cross-appellant.

Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for the amicus.

Robert D. Kamenshine, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for amicus United States Food Drug Administration.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00298-AHM.

Before: WALLACE, RYMER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.


Plaintiff Flora Motus claims that her husband suffered from an adverse reaction to the drug Zoloft, which she contends induced him to commit suicide. She argues that Pfizer Inc., as Zoloft's manufacturer, is liable because the company failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors of alleged side-effects associated with the antidepressant. The district court granted Pfizer's motion for summary judgment, holding that Motus failed to establish a sufficient causal link between her husband's suicide and Pfizer's conduct. See Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 984 (C.D.Cal. 2001). Because the district court there described the facts of this case in detail we repeat only the essential ones here. Upon de novo review, see Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231-35, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991), we affirm. In light of our disposition, we need not reach the pre-emption issues raised by Pfizer on cross-appeal.

Because this is a diversity action, we apply California substantive law and federal rules of procedure. See Bank of California v. Opie, 663 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[In] a diversity case, federal law alone governs whether evidence is sufficient to raise a question for the trier-of-fact.") (citation omitted).

We offer no opinion on the existence of purported side-effects associated with Zoloft or on the adequacy of Pfizer's warnings. Instead, we agree with the district court that even if Pfizer's warnings concerning Zoloft and suicide were deficient, on the facts of this case, Motus failed to establish that Pfizer's allegedly inadequate warnings contributed to her husband's suicide.

Motus acknowledges that Pfizer is obligated to warn doctors, not patients, of potential side-effects associated with its pharmaceutical products, see Carlin v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1116, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 162, 920 P.2d 1347 (1996), and concedes that the doctor who prescribed Zoloft to her husband failed to read Pfizer's published warnings before prescribing the drug. Because the doctor testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied Zoloft or rely on information provided by Pfizer's detail men before prescribing the drug to Mr. Motus, the adequacy of Pfizer's warnings is irrelevant to the disposition of this case.

We agree with the Second Circuit that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician. See Plummer v. Lederle Labs., Div. of Am. Cyanamid Co., 819 F.2d 349, 358-59 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). On the record adduced during discovery, Motus failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed her husband's medical treatment or averted his suicide. See id.

Under similar circumstances, the California Supreme Court held that "there is no conceivable causal connection between the representations or omissions that accompanied the product and plaintiff's injury." Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539, 556, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167 (1993). Therefore, whether judged by federal or California standards, see Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 531-33 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing between federal procedural standards which we apply and California summary judgment standards), summary judgment was properly entered in this case.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Motus v. Pfizer Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 9, 2004
358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2004)

holding that "a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician"

Summary of this case from Armantrout v. Squibb (in re Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.)

holding that "a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician"

Summary of this case from Young v. Eli Lilly & Co. (In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.)

holding that "a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician"

Summary of this case from In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.

holding that "a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician"

Summary of this case from Greaves v. Eli Lilly & Co (In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.)

holding that "a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician"

Summary of this case from McClamrock v. Eli Lilly & Co. (In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.)

holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician

Summary of this case from In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation

holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician

Summary of this case from In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation

finding that summary judgment was properly granted to defendant where the prescribing doctor "testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied Zoloft or rely on information provided by Pfizer's detail men before prescribing the drug to" the plaintiff's decedent

Summary of this case from Hexum v. Eli Lilly and Co.

finding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed the medical treatment provided or that such warnings would have averted the injury

Summary of this case from D'Agnese v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.

affirming district court's decision to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff "failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed her husband's medical treatment"

Summary of this case from Lopez v. Johnson & Johnson

affirming summary judgment on a failure-to-warn claim where the "[plaintiff] failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed her husband's medical treatment"

Summary of this case from Munoz v. Am. Med. Sys.

affirming grant of summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff "failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed her husband's medical treatment"

Summary of this case from Cleveland v. Janssen Pharm.

affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant where plaintiff failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed the plaintiff's decedent's medical treatment or averted his suicide

Summary of this case from Hexum v. Eli Lilly and Co.

affirming summary judgment based on lack of causation; reasoning that stronger warnings would not have changed patient's treatment since prescribing physician "testified that he did not read the warning label"

Summary of this case from Meade v. Parsley

affirming summary judgment based on lack of causation where plaintiff's "doctor testified that he did not read the warning label"

Summary of this case from Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.

affirming district court's holding that plaintiff could not establish causality without reaching the preemption issue

Summary of this case from Witczak v. Pfizer, Inc.

affirming summary judgment based on lack of causation

Summary of this case from Conte v. Wyeth, Inc.

affirming summary judgment because it was undisputed that the prescribing doctor did not read the manufacturer's information before prescribing the drug

Summary of this case from Conte v. Wyeth, Inc.

explaining that in diversity actions the court applies state substantive law and the federal rules of procedure

Summary of this case from Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

referring to "Pfizer's detail men" providing drug information to a physician

Summary of this case from Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

stating that a prescription drug manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the physician and that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the prescribing physician's conduct

Summary of this case from Latiolais v. Merck

stating that a prescription drug manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the physician

Summary of this case from Specter v. Tex. Turbine Conversions, Inc.

applying California law

Summary of this case from Evans v. Gilead Scis., Inc.

applying California law

Summary of this case from Wessels v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC

In Motus I, the district court considered whether a plaintiff could invoke a rebuttable presumption in California to prove that a failure to warn or inadequate warning was a "substantial factor" in causing harm. 196 F. Supp. 2d at 991.

Summary of this case from Tucker v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.
Case details for

Motus v. Pfizer Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Flora MOTUS, individually, as Successor in Interest of the Estate of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 9, 2004

Citations

358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2004)

Citing Cases

Tucker v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.

A manufacturer of a prescription drug is obligated warn physicians, not patients, of potential side effects…

Hexum v. Eli Lilly and Co.

Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 984, 990-91 (C.D. Cal. 2001) [hereinafter "Motus I"], aff'd sub nom.…