From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Porter v. Eli Lilly & Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 9, 2008
291 F. App'x 963 (11th Cir. 2008)

Summary

noting that the plaintiff had "to prove that, but for the alleged inadequate warning, [the decedent's physician] would not have prescribed Prozac to decedent"

Summary of this case from In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Litig.

Opinion

No. 08-11335 Non-Argument Calendar.

September 9, 2008.

Arnold Anderson Vickery, Arnold A. Vickery, P.A., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephen Mann Brooks, Richard B. North, Jr., Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough, L.L.P., Atlanta, GA, Andrew See, Shook, Hardy Bacon, L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 06-01297-CV-JOF-1.

Before DUBINA, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Eli Lilly and Company ("Eli Lilly"). Plaintiff Dawn Bertsch Porter ("Porter") brought an action against Eli Lilly contending that it was responsible for the suicide of her husband, Leland "Lee" Porter, because Eli Lilly failed to adequately warn of the potential risks between the drug Prozac and suicide. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Eley v. Baptist Hasp. Worth County, Inc., 199 Fed.Appx. 757, 758 (11th Cir. 2006).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly granted Eli Lilly's motion for summary judgment based on Porter's failure to produce evidence of proximate cause. See Powell v. Harsco Corp., 209 Ga.App. 348, 433 S.E.2d 608, 610 (1993). Under Georgia law, Porter was required to prove that, but for the alleged inadequate warning, Dr. Wolfberg, decedent's physician, would not have prescribed Prozac to decedent. See Wheat v. Sofamor, S.N.C., 46 F.Supp.2d 1351, 1363 (N.D.Ga. 1999). Dr. Wolfberg unequivocally testified that even if he had read the warning that Porter asserts should have been given, he still would have prescribed Prozac to the decedent. Thus, we agree with the district court that Porter cannot prove that Prozac was the proximate cause of decedent's death.

Because there is no merit to any of the arguments Porter makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Eli Lilly.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Porter v. Eli Lilly & Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Sep 9, 2008
291 F. App'x 963 (11th Cir. 2008)

noting that the plaintiff had "to prove that, but for the alleged inadequate warning, [the decedent's physician] would not have prescribed Prozac to decedent"

Summary of this case from In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Litig.
Case details for

Porter v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Case Details

Full title:Dawn Bertsch PORTER, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Sep 9, 2008

Citations

291 F. App'x 963 (11th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Litig.

To prevail on her claim, Cole must prove that if Mentor had provided an adequate post-implant warning, her…

Hubbard v. Bayer Healthcare Pharm. Inc.

It did hold that "[u]nder Georgia law, [the plaintiff] was required to prove that, but for the alleged…