Recent Development by L. L. Plotkin
In July 1981 Mrs. Brock, pregnant with her daughter, began to experience morning sickness. On July 28, 1981, she consulted her physician, who recommended that she take Bendectin. Bendectin is a prescription drug manufactured by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Merrell Dow), which attempts to relieve the symptoms of morning sickness. On March 19, 1982, Rachel Brock was born with Poland's Syndrome. Following Rachel's birth, Mr. and Mrs. Brock initiated a products liability suit against Merrell Dow on behalf of their daughter. At trial, the question of causation—whether it was more likely than not that Bendectin caused Rachel's birth defect—was of critical importance. Both plaintiff and defendant relied upon expert testimony to prove or disprove Bendectin's alleged link to Poland's Syndrome. At the end of trial, Merrell Dow filed a motion for directed verdict claiming that the plaintiff had not adequately proved causation. The court denied the motion and submitted the issue of causation to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for both compensatory and punitive damages. Merrell Dow then moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.), but the court denied the motion. On appeal, Merrell Dow again argued that the plaintiff had not proven that Bendectin caused Rachel Brock's birth defect. After examining the plaintiffs' expert testimony in detail, the court held that the plaintiffs' expert testimony was inadmissible and, consequently, a j.n.o.v. should have been granted because the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Bendectin had caused their daughter's birth defect. Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1989).
About the Author
L. L. Plotkin.
Citation
64 Tul. L. Rev. 1263 (1990)