Law Reporter | Products Liability Law Reporter | Professional Negligence Law Reporter
Publish your case | Other publications

Court Documents by Topic

Pharmaceutical Cases

Documents can be downloaded from the Exchange. For security reasons, the AAJ Exchange and its products are available only to AAJ Regular, Life, Sustaining, and President’s Club members.

Documents $50

• Kittleson v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 43 ATLA L. Rep. 276 (Sept. 2000) (transcript of proceedings in a case holding expert testimony admissible under Daubert despite lack of extensive epidemiological evidence or systematic studies). No. LR3605.

• Lovett v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab., 18 PLLR 187 (Dec. 1999) (plaintiff’s original master petition in a case alleging inadequate testing of fen-phen, a diet drug). No. LR3797.

• Nodurft v. Heritage Consumer Prods., LLC, 22 PLLR 6 (Feb. 2003) (findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case involving a dangerous allergy medicine). No. PL936.

• Scovish v. Upjohn Co., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 71 (Mar. 1996) (plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of defendant’s index and documents related to Halcion). No. LR2648.

• Wetherill v. Eli Lilly & Co., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 289 (Sept. 1996) (plaintiff’s brief in a case holding a cause of action for DES-related injuries accrues when plaintiff discovers her condition was inflicted by another). No. LR2826.

Document Sets $95

• Axen v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 42 ATLA L. Rep. 203 (June 1999) (the parties’ trial memoranda in a case holding punitive damages were properly awarded where a drug manufacturer did not warn of the condition that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries). No. LR3433.

• Carlin v. Super. Ct., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 410 (Dec. 1996) (the parties’ petitions for and against a writ of mandate in a case holding drug manufacturers may be strictly liable for failure to warn of knowable risks from prescription medication). No. LR2433.

• Edwards v. Basel Pharm., 40 ATLA L. Rep. 224 (Aug. 1997) (plaintiff’s appellate briefs in a case holding an exception to the learned intermediary rule exists where the Food and Drug Administration requires direct consumer warnings on prescription products). No. LR3024.

• Garcia v. Pfizer, Inc., 22 PLLR 136 (Aug. 2003) (defendants Pfizer Inc. and Warner-Lambert Company’s designation of experts and supplemental responses to plaintiffs’ requests for disclosure and plaintiffs’ second supplemental responses to defendant Warner-Lambert’s and a medical defendant’s requests for disclosure in a case alleging that the diabetes drug Rezulin was unreasonably dangerous and that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn physicians and consumers of the risk of liver disease). No. PL960.

• Garfinkle v. Bayer Corp., 23 PLLR 25 (Mar. 2004) (defendant’s memoranda in support of summary judgment and plaintiff’s affirmation opposition in a case holding plaintiff raised genuine fact questions as to whether her use of Cipro caused tendon rupture). No. PL978.

• Green v. Am. Pharm. Co., 42 ATLA L. Rep. 355 (Nov. 1998) (plaintiffs’ trial documents and appellate court briefs in a case holding that where separate—rather than progressive—injuries are alleged, the discovery rule applies separately to each injury). No. LR3317.

• Jones v. Upjohn Co., 15 PLLR 24 (Mar. 1996) (the parties’ appellate briefs and memoranda supporting and opposing defendant’s motion to dismiss in a case holding criminal convictions did not collaterally estop a suit against a drug manufacturer alleging Halcion caused plaintiff to commit crimes). No. LR3796.

• Ramirez v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 42 ATLA L. Rep. 107 (Apr. 1999) (the parties’ memoranda on defendant’s summary judgment motion in a case holding that the manufacturer of subcutaneous contraceptive capsules was not entitled to summary judgment on a claim that it had failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings regarding nerve damage to a nurse practitioner who inserted the capsules and subsequently removed them from a patient’s body). No. LR3408.

• Sandoz Pharm. Corp. v. Roberts, 13 PLLR 199 (Dec. 1996) (the parties’ appellate briefs in a case upholding a verdict against the manufacturer of Parlodel where plaintiffs alleged the lactation suppressant was unreasonably dangerous and had caused a stroke). No. LR3798.

• Yugler v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., 20 PLLR 107 (July 2001) (plaintiffs’ complaint, defendant’s summary judgment motion and supporting memorandum, plaintiffs’ reply brief and supporting memorandum, and the court’s order in a case holding that a drug manufacturer may be liable for its failure to warn, even though the manufacturer complied with Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements). No. PL876.