Sunday, October 2, 2022
HomeHealth LawAssured Realized Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Assured Realized Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation


Assured prescribing physicians and implanting surgeons are the perfect “discovered” intermediaries.  They’re skilled at what they do and aren’t intimidated by plaintiffs’ counsel and their threats of malpractice claims in the event that they don’t testify the best way plaintiffs need them to.  Assured discovered intermediaries stand by their medical choices.  Thus a assured discovered middleman’s testimony will defeat causation as a matter of legislation by stating that, however a poor end result, the remedy offered was customary of care, and even in hindsight they might not do something completely different.  As a result of we encountered many arise discovered middleman surgeons within the Bone Screw litigation, a number of of the comparatively early choices from the 1999-2001 timeframe are Bone Screw circumstances.

Because the discovered middleman rule is a creature of (basically unanimous) state legislation, we begin with state appellate choices.  After the Texas Supreme Court docket’s adoption of the discovered middleman rule in Centocor, Inc. v. Hamilton, 372 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. 2012), it needed to apply the rule.  Centocor held as a matter of legislation that plaintiffs didn’t show that the claimed inadequacy within the defendant’s labeling – that the chance was “uncommon” − triggered something.  One prescriber “testified that primarily based on her evaluation of all of the post-approval knowledge, on the time of trial, she believed the [risk] was nonetheless uncommon.”  Id. at 171.  The opposite prescriber testified equally.  Id. at 172 (“continued to prescribe” the drug “so much” and “believed it to be an efficient drug for a lot of of her sufferers”).  “Accordingly, as a result of there isn’t any causation proof to assist [plaintiffs’] claims, all of that are premised on . . . failure to warn, [their] claims should fail.”  Id. at 173.

Centocor relied partially on Guzman v. Synthes (USA), 20 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App. 1999), the place an implanting surgeon dismissed the plaintiff’s nitpicking as involving “ideas fundamental to orthopedics” and testified that “he would deal with [plaintiff] within the an identical method as we speak as he did [before].”  Id. at 720-21.  That testimony defeated a purported (and since rejected in Texas) heeding presumption and left plaintiff with “no proof” supporting causation.  Id. at 721.  Accord Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. v. Medrano, 28 S.W.3d 87, 95 (Tex. App. 2000) (discovered middleman testimony that none of plaintiff’s alleged “failure[s] to reveal” would have “affected her determination to prescribe the [product] to [plaintiff]” defeated causation “as a matter of legislation”).

In a per curiam order, in Strumph v. Schering Corp., the New Jersey Supreme Court docket reversed an intermediate court docket determination for “considerably for the explanations expressed in [the] dissenting opinion” under.  626 A.second 1090, 1090 (N.J. 1993).  That dissent concluded that, as a matter of legislation, the plaintiff failed to determine causation beneath the discovered middleman rule:

[Plaintiff’s prescribers] testified that even when they’d learn all the knowledge contained within the [later] PDR entry for [the drug], which plaintiff’s consultants admitted contained sufficient warnings, this might not have modified their choices to prescribe the drug for plaintiff.

Strumph v. Schering Corp., 606 A.second 1140, 1148 (N.J. Tremendous. App. Div. 1993) (dissenting opinion).  Additional, “each medical doctors testified that they nonetheless prescribe [the drug] for sufferers with situations just like plaintiff’s situation.”  Id.  In keeping with “most jurisdictions”:

[A] defendant drug producer is probably not held responsible for an alleged insufficient warning the place the one proof on the difficulty of causation is the prescribing physician’s unequivocal testimony that his or her determination to prescribe the drug was not affected by the warning.

Id. at 1150 (citations omitted).

A number of different state appellate choices are to the identical impact.  Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Mason, 27 So.3d 75 (Fla. App. 2009), reversed a plaintiff’s verdict for entry of judgment n.o.v. the place the prescriber:

testified that he would nonetheless be keen to prescribe [the drug] to his sufferers even when there was proof displaying that it may trigger [plaintiff’s condition] in uncommon circumstances.  He additionally testified that even when the warning label contained all the info steered by [plaintiff’s] skilled, he would nonetheless have prescribed the treatment for [plaintiff].

Id. at 77.  Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.second 141 (Pa. Tremendous. 2006), affirmed abstract judgment as a result of even when the omitted danger “had been added to the ‘Warnings’ part of the label,” the prescribing doctor testified he “would nonetheless have prescribed the drug for [plaintiff].”  Id. at 150-51.  Silva v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2013 WL 4516160, at *3 (N.M. App. Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished), additionally affirmed abstract judgment in mild of prescriber testimony:

[A]lthough the FDA required label adjustments to the warnings for [the drug] and its generic equal after [the prescriber’s] prescription determination, she defined in her deposition that “[n]othing within the FDA required label adjustments would have an effect on [her] determination to prescribe [the drug] as we speak” to sufferers who current in the identical approach that [the decedent] did. . . .  [H]er unequivocal place to make use of [the drug] or its generic equal to deal with [the decedent] no matter the adequacy of [defendant’s] warning label info . . . precludes Plaintiffs’ insufficient warning claims.

Id. at *3.

Federal courts of enchantment, making use of state legislation, have repeatedly reached the identical conclusion when confronted with the testimony of assured prescribing or implanting physicians who’ve reaffirmed their prescription choices however no matter warning-related mud that plaintiffs sought to sling towards prescription medical merchandise.

Making use of the Florida Mason determination that we’ve already mentioned, Salinero v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 995 F.3d 959, 966 (eleventh Cir. 2021), held that the implanting surgeon’s testimony “shut[] down” the plaintiff’s warning declare as a result of, warnings “containing extra info on the dangers posed by [defendant’s device] wouldn’t have altered his determination to make use of the implant in [plaintiff’s] surgical procedure.”  Id. at 966.

[The implanter] offered specific, uncontroverted testimony that he believed his determination to make use of [the device] because the . . . implant for [plaintiff’s] surgical procedure was right. . . .  [He] repeated that he stood by his determination to make use of [device] [plaintiff] and nonetheless believed that the surgical procedure he carried out . . . was the “best choice” for her. He additionally defined that [device] remained his “most popular implant” for comparable surgical procedures.  Certainly, he stated, that if he have been “doing [the same surgery] this afternoon,” he would nonetheless use that implant.  His testimony unequivocally establishes that he would have used the . . . implant for [plaintiff’s surgery] whatever the dangers included within the [product warnings].

Id. (citations omitted).  “Identical to in Mason, [this] testimony reveals that any claimed inadequacies within the [product warnings] couldn’t have been the proximate explanation for [plaintiff’s] accidents.”  Id.

Salinero additionally adopted the latest Hubbard v. Bayer HealthCare Prescribed drugs, Inc., 983 F.3d 1223, 1233 (eleventh Cir. 2020), prescription drug determination that affirmed an identical abstract judgment beneath Georgia legislation:

[Defendant] is entitled to last abstract judgment as a matter of legislation.  [The prescriber] offered specific, uncontroverted testimony that, even when supplied with essentially the most present analysis and FDA mandated warnings, in addition to the knowledge present in [defendant’s] up to date . . . label, he would nonetheless have prescribed [the drug] to [plaintiff]. . . .  The causal chain is subsequently damaged, and [plaintiffs] can’t set up proximate trigger. . . .  Most significantly, [the prescriber] unambiguously testified that he views his [prior] determination to prescribe [the drug] to [plaintiff] as an applicable one, even now that he is aware of precisely what was included within the [updated] label.

Id. at 1233 (quotation omitted).  Accord Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 598 F.3d 812, 816 (eleventh Cir. 2010) (no causation as a result of “[t]he physician offered specific, uncontroverted testimony that, even when supplied with essentially the most present analysis and FDA mandated warnings, he nonetheless would have prescribed” the drug to the decedent) (making use of Georgia legislation).

One other latest determination is In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 994 F.3d 704 (fifth Cir. 2021) (making use of Louisiana legislation).  Causation issues within the Taxotere MDL are significantly distinguished as a result of they rely upon oncologists and their sufferers eschewing lifesaving standard-of-care chemotherapy resulting from a danger of – everlasting hair loss.  That don’t impress us a lot, and it didn’t impress the Fifth Circuit both.  Unsurprisingly, plaintiff’s prescribing oncologist testified that if “somebody with [plaintiff’s] medical historical past got here to you as we speak with the identical tumor sort,” that plaintiff would get the “similar advice” for remedy.  Id. at 709 (quotation and citation marks omitted).

[T]he prescriber] testified that the extra warning . . . has not materially altered his risk-benefit evaluation of [the drug]. . . .  The precise sort of [risk] seems on this file to have had no impact on [his] prescribing determination. . . .  [The prescriber] repeatedly testified {that a} [drug] label warning of probably everlasting hair loss − versus momentary hair loss − wouldn’t have modified his determination to make use of the [drug in] chemotherapy to deal with [plaintiff].

Id.

Centocor additionally cited Ackermann v. Wyeth Prescribed drugs, 526 F.3d 203, 210-212 (fifth Cir. 2008) (making use of Texas legislation and mentioned right here), a number of occasions.  372 S.W.3d at 165, 170, 173.  In Ackermann the decedent’s prescribing doctor “his deposition and in his later declaration . . . affirmed that he would have prescribed [the drug] to [the decedent] and adhered to the remedy routine he used regardless whether or not he had obtained the proposed stronger warning.”  526 F.3d at 210 (footnote omitted), see id. at 212 (citing prescriber’s testimony “that his remedy protocol wouldn’t have modified and he nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug] whatever the warning given by the producer”).

There are fairly just a few older precedential federal court docket of appeals choices that additionally contain stand-up prescribers/implanters who reaffirm their use of the merchandise beneath assault as correct and that they might do it once more.  See Ehlis v. Shire Richwood, Inc., 367 F.3d 1013, 1018 (eighth Cir. 2004) (no causation the place prescriber “continues to prescribe [similar] treatment . . . for the reason that incident involving [plaintiff]” and “continues to prescribe [this drug], as a result of [it] is an efficient treatment”) (making use of North Dakota legislation); Ellis v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 311 F.3d 1272, 1283 n.8 (eleventh Cir. 2002) (the “causal hyperlink is damaged” the place the implanting surgeon “would have taken the identical plan of action even with the knowledge the plaintiff contends ought to have been offered”) (quotation and citation marks omitted) (making use of Georgia legislation); Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965, 977 (tenth Cir. 2001) (no causation as a result of, resulting from plaintiff’s situation, the implanting surgeon “wouldn’t have used the [plaintiff’s alternative] even with the data that the [product] was weaker”) (making use of Kansas legislation); Wright v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1235 (tenth Cir. 2001) (no causation the place medical personnel “had no different apart from to make use of the . . . process that existed on the time of [plaintiff’s] damage”; malpractice was “intervening trigger”) (making use of Kansas legislation); Eck v. Parke, Davis & Co., 256 F.3d 1013, 1022 (tenth Cir. 2001) (no causation the place prescriber testified that “even when she knew [plaintiff] was taking, or may take, a drug with a [greater synergistic risk], she nonetheless would have prescribed [this drug],” as a result of “the chance of” plaintiff’s underlying situation “was a lot higher” than drug’s danger) (making use of Oklahoma legislation); Odom v. G.D. Searle & Co., 979 F.second 1001, 1003-04 (4th Cir. 1992) (no causation the place implanter testified that the “danger that [plaintiff’s] skilled confirmed . . . wouldn’t have modified his determination to prescribe the [device]”) (making use of South Carolina legislation); Thomas v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 949 F.second 806, 817 (fifth Cir. 1992) (“chance that [the prescriber] would have modified his determination if he had been warned of the potential for uncommon [events] attributable to [the drug] is just too distant to create a real situation of reality with respect to warning causation”) (making use of Mississippi legislation); Stanback v. Parke, Davis & Co., 657 F.second 642, 645-46 (4th Cir. 1981) (“the file conclusively demonstrates that [the prescriber’s] choices and actions wouldn’t have been affected within the least by the communication of an sufficient warning”) (making use of Virginia legislation).

Between non-precedential federal affirmances and federal district courts, there are actually scores of discovered middleman causation choices that activate lack of any proof that a greater warning would have led to a special end result.  Since so many of those choices come up from MDLs and comparable state court docket aggregations – the place the state legislation being utilized bears no relationship to the placement of the court docket issuing the choice − we’ll current the remainder of these circumstances in state-by-state type:

Alabama

West v. Janssen Prescribed drugs, 2018 WL 1977258, at *12 (Magazine. M.D. Ala. April 4, 2018) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “testified that his prescribing determination wouldn’t have modified”), adopted, 2018 WL 1973272 (M.D. Ala. April 26, 2018); Cooper v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2013 WL 85291, at *8 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2013) (no causation given prescriber’s “testimony that he would prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff once more even with the advantage of the extra . . . warning proposed by Plaintiff”) (making use of Alabama legislation); Barnhill v. Teva Prescribed drugs USA, Inc., 819 F. Supp.second 1254, 1261 (S.D. Ala. 2011) (no causation the place “on the time of her deposition − ten years after firsthand expertise with [plaintiff’s injury] – [the prescriber] continued to prescribe [the drug] for . . . the exact same sickness for which she handled Plaintiff”); In re Trasylol Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2011 WL 2117257, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Might 23, 2011) (no causation the place prescriber “testified . . . that he had thought of the knowledge that Plaintiff claims was wrongfully omitted . . ., however that, having thought of it, he nonetheless would proceed prescribing [the drug]”) (making use of Alabama legislation); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *8-11) (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified they “would nonetheless prescribe [the drug]” to plaintiffs in the event that they “have been introduced in the identical method as we speak, regardless of what [they] now know[] about [the drug] and its dangers and unintended effects” or “wouldn’t have modified [their] observe given a special warning”) (making use of Alabama legislation).

Alaska

None.

Arizona

McBroom v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 824411, at *3 (D. Ariz. March 4, 2021) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “didn’t testify that he would have shared warnings about elevated dangers with Plaintiff, or that the warnings would have altered his determination to implant the [device]”); Paseka v. Ethicon Inc., 2020 WL 8175427, at *2, 4-5 (D. Ariz. Nov. 9, 2020) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place implanter “nonetheless stands by his determination to implant the [device] in Plaintiff and nonetheless regards [it] to be a secure and efficient remedy for” plaintiff’s situation); D’Agnese v. Novartis Prescribed drugs Corp., 952 F. Supp.second 880, 892 (D. Ariz. 2013) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “beneficial that [plaintiff] restart [the drug] on the similar dose and frequency . . . years after [plaintiff] developed [the complained-of condition] and [prescriber] continues to prescribe [the drug] to his sufferers”); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2009 WL 5062109, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2009) (no causation the place prescriber’s “testimony reveals that she wouldn’t have modified her determination to prescribe [the drug] even when [defendant] had offered a special warning”), aff’d, 394 F. Appx. 817, 819 (second Cir. 2010) (as a result of prescriber “acknowledged explicitly that different warnings about [the drug] would have had no impact on her prescribing habits”) (making use of Arizona legislation); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *11-13 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs’ no causation the place “clear that the physician wouldn’t have altered his prescribing observe” in response to “a special warning,” “confirmed {that a} stronger warning wouldn’t have altered his determination to prescribe [the drug],” “would nonetheless have prescribed [the drug] to Plaintiff due to the situation introduced,” and “would nonetheless prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff as we speak”) (making use of Arizona, legislation).

Arkansas

Sharp v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 1434566, at *4-5 (W.D. Ark. March 24, 2020) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “testified − with out qualification − that completely different warnings wouldn’t have modified his determination to prescribe” and “that he would have taken the identical plan of action then as he would now, as his good opinion of the gadget had not modified”); Boehm v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2012 WL 12848432, at *4 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 4, 2012) (no causation have been, “[u]nderstanding the recognized dangers,” the prescribing physicians testified that “they stand by their choices to prescribe”), aff’d, 747 F.3d 501 (eighth Cir. 2014).

California

Missouria v. Eli Lilly & Co., 394 F. Appx. 825, 827 (second Cir. 2010) (no causation the place the prescribing doctor “continues to prescribe [the drug] to sufferers in comparable positions to [plaintiff] as we speak”) (making use of California legislation); Enborg v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 800879, at *21 (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2022) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “stands by his determination to advocate and use [device] in treating [plaintiff]” and “ would provide a lady with [plaintiff’s] signs the identical remedy plan as we speak”) (citations and citation marks omitted); In re Plavix Advertising and marketing, Gross sales Practices & Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2017 WL 4838842, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct. 26, 2017) (no causation the place each [prescribers] testified . . . that even contemplating the [complained-of] dangers and the extra warnings, they might have prescribed [the drug] to Plaintiff”) (making use of California legislation); Thomas v. Abbott Laboratories, 2014 WL 4197494, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2014) (no causation the place the prescriber “testified that had he been conscious” of what plaintiff alleged, “he nonetheless would have prescribed”); Mattson v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., 2013 WL 1758647, at *5 (D.N.J. April 22, 2013) (no causation the place prescriber testified that prescribing the drug remained the “customary of medical observe as we speak . . . that he would proceed to prescribe [the drug] to sufferers like Plaintiff,” and “wouldn’t have modified the prescription for Plaintiff even understanding the extra dangers which were raised by Plaintiff’s allegations on this litigation”) (making use of California legislation); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2009 WL 1850970, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2009) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that he ‘would do the identical factor’ whatever the warning offered”), reconsideration denied, 2009 WL 2160999 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (making use of California legislation); Nix v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2007 WL 2526402, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2007) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that regardless of [the decedent’s] demise and up to date warnings from Defendant, he continues to prescribe [the drug] for his sufferers as a result of he believes [it] is a secure and efficient medication”) (making use of California legislation); Latiolais v. Merck & Co., 2007 WL 5861354, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2007) (no causation the place the prescriber “repeatedly acknowledged that he would have prescribed [the drug], even with a black field warning, in unequivocal and sure phrases”), aff’d, 302 F. Appx. 756 (ninth Cir. 2008); In re Pradaxa Circumstances, 2019 WL 6043514, at *5-6 (Cal. Tremendous. Nov. 8, 2019) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that not one of the extra danger info . . . introduced to him by Plaintiff’s counsel . . . would have modified his determination to prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff, or the type of knowledgeable consent dialogue he had along with her”); Pradaxa Circumstances, 2019 WL 1177507 at *3 (Cal. Tremendous. Feb. 1, 2019) (similar), amended, 2019 WL 6043512 (Cal. Tremendous. March 29, 2019); Byetta Circumstances, 2015 WL 883211, at *1 (Cal. Tremendous. Feb. 26, 2015); In re Plavix Product & Advertising and marketing Circumstances, 2017 WL 2882212, at *3 (Cal. Tremendous. June 29, 2017) (no causation the place “[t]he prescribing medical doctors wouldn’t have modified their prescriptions primarily based on what they now learn about [the drug]”); Lord v. Sigueiros, 2006 WL 1510408, at *3 (Cal. Tremendous. April 26, 2006) (no causation the place the prescriber “testified that ‘primarily based on what he is aware of now,’ he wouldn’t have modified the warning he gave to decedent”), aff’d, 2007 WL 4418019 (Cal. App. Dec. 19, 2007) (unpublished); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 355843, at *13-17 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Jan. 29, 2016) (no causation the place a number of prescribers testified: that he would prescribe the drug to plaintiffs “as we speak” figuring out “every part” in regards to the drug, together with the plaintiffs “lawsuits”) (making use of California legislation).

Colorado

Curtin v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 825986, at *7 (D. Colo. March 4, 2021) (no causation the place implanting surgeon’s “testimony signifies that additional info concerning [the device’s] dangers . . . wouldn’t have affected [the implanter’s] determination to make use of the . . . gadget for [plaintiff’s] surgical procedure”); Carver v. American Medical Methods, Inc., 2020 WL 8258217, at *3 (D. Colo. Might 18, 2020) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “testified that she would nonetheless prescribe the [the device] to plaintiff − even figuring out what she is aware of now”); In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2020 WL 1030851, at *3 (E.D. La. March 3, 2020) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “testified that she nonetheless would have beneficial [the drug] even when there had been a warning about [the alleged risk] within the label”), aff’d, 859 F. Appx. 692 (fifth Cir. 2021) (making use of Colorado legislation); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *13-17 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified:  “she continues to prescribe [the drug] as we speak; that it was “a miracle drug”; “he would nonetheless prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff if he have been introduced in the identical method as we speak figuring out what he now is aware of about [the drug] and its dangers and unintended effects”; “if he noticed a affected person as we speak with [a condition] like Plaintiff’s, he would contemplate them a candidate for [the drug]”; “a special warning wouldn’t have altered her recommendation to prescribe [the drug][“ (applying Colorado law); In re NuvaRing Litigation, 2013 WL 1874321, at *26 (N.J. Super. Law Div. April 18, 2013) (no causation where prescriber “continues to prescribe” the drug while “aware of the risks”) (applying Colorado law).

Connecticut

Swoverland v. GlaxoSmithKline, 2011 WL 6001864, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 5, 2011) (no causation where the prescribing physician “indicated that knowing what he knows now, he would not change any of the medical advice or prescriptions that he gave to the plaintiff”); Roberto v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2019 WL 4806271, at *3 (Conn. Super. Sept. 11, 2019) (no causation where the prescriber “testified clearly that he stands behind his decision to prescribe [the drug] and that, in prescribing [it], he made the suitable determination”) (quotation and citation marks omitted).

Delaware

Inexperienced v. Janssen Prescribed drugs, Inc., 2019 WL 1567841, at *3 (D. Del. April 11, 2019) (no causation the place “[t]he doctor who was deposed . . . particularly testified that extra info on the dangers related to [the drug] wouldn’t have impacted his determination to prescribe Plaintiff the drug”).

District of Columbia

Dyson v. Winfield, 113 F. Supp.second 35, 41 (D.D.C. 2000) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “testified that, had the packaging contained an additional warning as to [the plaintiff’s condition], he nonetheless would have prescribed it for the plaintiff”), aff’d, 21 F. Appx. 2 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Florida

Mason, 27 So.3d 75, supra; Salinero, 995 F.3d 959, supra; Small v. Amgen, Inc., 723 F. Appx. 722, 725 (eleventh Cir. 2018) (no causation the place the prescribing doctor “would have taken the identical plan of action even with the knowledge the plaintiff contends ought to have been offered”) (quotation and citation marks omitted) (making use of Florida legislation); LaBarre v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., 544 F. Appx. 120, 125 n.10 (3d Cir. 2013) (no causation the place “[b]oth of [plaintiff’s] physicians testified that they nonetheless consider [the drug] was an applicable remedy for [him]”) (making use of Florida legislation); Swintelski v. American Medical Methods, Inc., 521 F. Supp.3d 1215, 1220-21 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (no causation the place the prescriber “figuring out what he is aware of as we speak, would have persevered in his determination to prescribe and use the [device] in her operation” and “nonetheless would have prescribed and used the [device] in her operation even when he had been in possession of extra detailed warnings”), reconsideration denied, 2021 WL 1902233 (S.D. Fla. April 21, 2021); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2009 WL 2004540, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2009) (no causation the place prescriber “testi[fied] that, even as we speak, he didn’t ‘second guess’ the choice to deal with plaintiff with [the drug]”), reconsideration denied, 2009 WL 2762233 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2009) (making use of Florida legislation); Chase v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., 740 F. Supp.second 1295, 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (no causation the place prescriber “unequivocally state[d] that he wouldn’t have modified his prescription determination for Plaintiff . . ., even with the addition of the language now discovered within the bundle insert”); McDaniel v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., 1999 WL 1062136, at *5 (S.D. Fla. April 9, 1999) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “acknowledged . . . that he wouldn’t have made a special remedy alternative for [plaintiff] no matter any new dangers revealed after plaintiff’s surgical procedure”).

Georgia

Hubbard, 983 F.3d 1223, supra; Dietz, 598 F.3d 812, supra; Ellis, 311 F.3d 1272, supra; Williams v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 857747, at *3 (N.D. Ga. March 8, 2021) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “affirmatively acknowledged that she would nonetheless observe the identical course of remedy and carry out the [same] surgical procedure”); Jones v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 5836555, at *6 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020) (no causation the place implanter testified that “he continued nonetheless stood by that call” to implant the gadget in plaintiff); Nix v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 5525172, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2020) (no causation the place the implanter “testified repeatedly that he stood by his determination to advocate and implant [the device] and that his determination wouldn’t have modified even when the . . . IFU had included a extra intensive listing of dangers”); Cessna v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 2121392, at *5-6 (M.D. Ga. April 2, 2020) (no causation the place the implanter “stands by that call as we speak however Plaintiffs’ current claims”); Plott v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 12948625, at *2 (N.D. Ga. March 23, 2020) (no causation the place implanter “testifie[d] that she would take the identical plan of action now to deal with” plaintiff and “confirmed that she stood by her determination to advocate and use [product] for [plaintiff] and that nothing she had heard in her . . . deposition modified her thoughts”); In re Cook dinner Medical, Inc. IVC Filters Advertising and marketing, Gross sales Practices & Product Legal responsibility Litigation, 2018 WL 6415585, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 5, 2018) (no causation the place “nothing about Plaintiff’s expertise . . . triggered [the implanter] to alter his thoughts about utilizing IVC filters generally or the [defendant’s product] specifically”) (making use of Georgia legislation); Brown v. Roche Laboratories, Inc., 2013 WL 2457950, at *8 (N.D. Ga. June 6, 2013) (“the place the physician has precise data of the chance and would have taken the identical plan of action even with the warning that plaintiff claims ought to have been offered, the discovered middleman doctrine bars restoration”); Courson v. Wright Medical Know-how, Inc., 2013 WL 5595973, at *10 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 11, 2013) (no causation the place the implanter “states that even when he was warned that the . . . gadget was a prototype, he would have proceeded with the identical plan of action”); Eberhart v. Novartis Prescribed drugs Corp., 867 F. Supp.second 1241, 1254 (N.D. Ga. 2011)  (no causation the place plaintiff’s “treating doctor testified that she would have prescribed the remedy whatever the warning, [and] that [the drugs] have been and are the usual of take care of Plaintiff’s situation”); Porter v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2008 WL 544739, at *11-12 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2008) (no causation the place the prescribing doctor “testi[fied] that he wouldn’t have handled [the decedent] with a special treatment or in a special method had he recognized of the chance . . . proffered by Plaintiff’s skilled[,] and which is seemingly acknowledged by the more moderen warnings”), aff’d, 291 F. Appx. 963, 964 (eleventh Cir. 2008) (affirming primarily based on “testi[mony] that even when [the prescriber] had learn the warning that [plaintiff] asserts ought to have been given, he nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug] to the decedent”); Wheat v. Sofamor, S.N.C., 46 F. Supp.second 1351, 1363 (N.D. Ga. 1999) (no causation the place “[e]ach of the plaintiffs’ treating physicians testified . . . that he would have taken the identical plan of action despite the knowledge Plaintiffs contend ought to have been offered”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *18-20 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified:  “a stronger label wouldn’t have modified his ‘prescribing practices’”; even with a stronger warning “she would have seemingly prescribed [the drug] to Plaintiff”; “with data of all of the dangers and unintended effects [the prescriber] would nonetheless prescribe [the drug]”; “if Plaintiff have been introduced to her in the identical method as we speak, she would nonetheless prescribe her [the drug] regardless of what she now is aware of”) (making use of Georgia legislation).

Hawai’i

None.

Idaho

None.

Illinois

Vaughn v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 5816740, at *4 (S.D. Sick. Sept. 30, 2020) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “testified that even as we speak he believes the [product] was a secure and applicable gadget for [plaintiff]”); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2010 WL 348276, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2010) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “unequivocally testified that any info obtainable [later] wouldn’t have modified his previous remedy of Plaintiff”) (making use of Illinois legislation); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *20-22 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified:  “testified that Defendants’ warning as to [the risk] was correct”; “repeatedly testified, ‘Sure I’d’ when requested whether or not she would proceed prescribing [the drug]”; “stood by her prescribing determination”) (making use of Illinois legislation).

Indiana

Hull v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 1154577, at *8 (S.D. Ind. March 10, 2020) (no causation as a result of “even when the IFU had included a warning concerning all the dangers related to the [device, the implanting surgeon] nonetheless would have beneficial the surgical procedure to [plaintiff]”).

Iowa

Madsen v. American House Merchandise Corp., 477 F. Supp.second 1025, 1036 (E.D. Mo. 2007) (“the causal hyperlink between Plaintiff’s damage and the alleged failure to warn is damaged as a result of the proof signifies that [the prescribing physician] would have continued to prescribe the . . . medication even when he had been supplied with sufficient warnings”) (making use of Iowa legislation).

Kansas

Ralston, 275 F.3d 965, supra; Wright, 259 F.3d 1226, supra; Davis v. Johnson & Johnson, 2022 WL 1566117, at *6-7 (D. Kan. Might 18, 2022) (causation failed and heeding presumption rebutted the place implanting surgeon “testified that he stood by his determination to supply [the device] to Plaintiff”); Vanderwerf v. SmithKlineBeecham Corp., 529 F. Supp.second 1294, 1311-12 (D. Kan. 2008) (causation failed and heeding presumption rebutted the place plaintiffs’ prescribing physicians “each testified that even with the knowledge which they’ve as we speak . . ., they might have prescribed [the drug] to [the decedent]”); Miller v. Pfizer, Inc., 196 F. Supp.second 1095, 1127-28 (D. Kan. 2002) (causation failed and heeding presumption rebutted the place the prescriber “acknowledged beneath oath that even when he had been offered the knowledge and opinions expressed by [plaintiffs’ expert], and obtained plaintiffs’ extra warnings, he would have prescribed [the drug] for [the decedent] with out additional warning or directions”), aff’d, 356 F.3d 1326 (tenth Cir. 2004); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 355843, at *8-9 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Jan. 29, 2016) (no causation the place the prescriber “testified that his danger dialogue with Plaintiff wouldn’t have been any completely different” and “testified that regardless of what he is aware of about [the drug] now, he would nonetheless prescribe [it] to Plaintiff as we speak if he was introduced in the identical method”) (making use of Kansas legislation).

Kentucky

Terry v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 468051, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 15, 2022) (the implanting surgeon “has testified that even along with his present data of the [device’s] unintended effects, he nonetheless believes the gadget is efficient and secure to be used.  In consequence, any inadequacy of [defendant’s] warnings didn’t proximately trigger [plaintiff’s] accidents”); Thacker v. Ethicon, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2021 WL 5362076, at *5-6 & n.1 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 17, 2021) (no causation the place implanter “clearly indicated even when he knew on the time of implantation what he is aware of now, he nonetheless believed the gadgets to be secure and efficient with the advantages outweighing the prices,” “stands by his determination,” and “even when he knew then what he is aware of now, he wouldn’t have modified his thoughts”); Mitchell v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 4550898, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 6, 2020) (no causation the place the implanter testified that “she stands by her determination to make use of” the gadget); Cutter v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 109809, at *8 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2020) (no causation the place after studying of related dangers, the implanter “continued to consider that the advantages outweighed the dangers”, so “additional info” in regards to the dangers “wouldn’t have affected his determination”), aff’d, 2021 WL 3754245 (sixth Cir. Aug. 25, 2021); Clark v. Danek Medical, Inc., 1999 WL 613316, at *6 (W.D. Ky. March 29, 1999) (“At no level did the surgeon recommend that extra info from [defendant] might need triggered him to make use of a special implant or no implant in any respect”).

Louisiana

Taxotere, 994 F.3d 704, supra; In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2021 WL 1534481, at *4 (E.D. La. April 19, 2021) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescribing doctor “testified that even when the label had warned of [the claimed risk], this might not have affected his determination”) (footnote omitted); In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2021 WL 1534482, at *2 (E.D. La. April 16, 2021) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescriber testified that “if [plaintiff] got here to him as we speak with the identical analysis, he would nonetheless advocate the identical . . . routine that he beneficial to her years in the past”); In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2020 WL 1819665, at *2-3 (E.D. La. April 7, 2020) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place proof “demonstrated that even with an sufficient warning from [defendant, the prescriber] would have selected [the same] routine”); Shepard v. Johnson & Johnson, 2019 WL 5585001, at *4 (W.D. La. Oct. 29, 2019) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that she stood by her determination to make use of that product”); Whitener v. PLIVA, Inc., 2014 WL 1276489, at *6 (E.D. La. March 27, 2014) (no causation as a result of “it appears clear to the Court docket . . . that even figuring out every part he is aware of as we speak, [the prescriber] would have nonetheless prescribed [the drug] to [the decedent]”), aff’d, 606 F. Appx. 762 (fifth Cir. 2015); Legard v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., 833 F. Supp.second 775, 780 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (no causation the place the prescriber’s “testimony helps the Defendants’ place that no extra info concerning the [product] would have modified the prescriber’s determination to proceed use by the Plaintiff”) (making use of Louisiana legislation); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2009 WL 3596526, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2009) (no causation the place the prescriber “testified that if a affected person as we speak displayed the identical signs . . ., he would have “no hesitation” in prescribing [the drug]”) (making use of Louisiana legislation); Oliver v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., 2008 WL 4691626, at *7 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2008) (no causation the place “each of Plaintiff’s treating physicians continued to prescribe [the drug] after the [FDA added a] black field warning”); Allgood v. Glaxosmithkline Plc., 2008 WL 483574, at *6 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2008) (no causation the place “appears clear to the Court docket that [the prescriber] treats very sick folks . . ., and that even figuring out every part he is aware of as we speak, [he] nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug] to [the decedent]”); Guidry v. Aventis Prescribed drugs, Inc., 418 F. Supp.second 835, 842 (M.D. La. 2006) (no causation given the prescriber’s “testimony that given the circumstances as they have been . . ., he took applicable motion to prescribe [the drug] for the plaintiff and he wouldn’t change that call”); Simon v. Baxter Well being Care Corp., 1989 WL 101560, at *2-4 (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 1989) (no causation the place doctor “was proven the [plaintiff’s alternative] and requested ‘Would you’ve gotten performed something completely different that day?’ to which he replied, ‘No sir.’”), aff’d mem., 915 F.second 1569 (fifth Cir. 1990); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 355843, at *9-12 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Jan. 29, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified:  they “would nonetheless prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff as we speak if introduced to him in the identical method regardless of what he now is aware of about [the drug’s] dangers and advantages”; “regardless of what she is aware of about [the drug] now, she would nonetheless prescribe [it] to Plaintiff as we speak if she was introduced in the identical method”; or “he would nonetheless prescribe Plaintiff [the drug], even figuring out what he now is aware of in regards to the dangers and facet impact”) (making use of Louisiana legislation).

Maine

Doe v. Solvay Prescribed drugs, Inc., 350 F. Supp.second 257, 273-74 (D. Me. 2004) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place “then and now, [the prescribing physician] thought of [the drug] to be totally secure and applicable to prescribe to sufferers,” and “he continues to prescribe [the drug] to his sufferers, aff’d, 153 F. Appx. 1 (1st Cir. 2005).

Maryland

Donalds v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 6126297, at *10 (D. Md. Dec. 28, 2021) (no causation the place the implanting doctor “stood by her determination to advocate the [device] to [plaintiff]” and “wouldn’t have modified her determination to prescribe the [device] after reviewing [plaintiff’s] Danger Chart”); Conway v. American Medical Methods, Inc., 2021 WL 6126293, at *2, 6 (D. Md. Dec. 28, 2021) (no causation the place implanter testified that “[a]lthough the . . . gadget is now not obtainable, . . . she would nonetheless use it if it have been,” and “if [plaintiff] introduced to her as we speak with the identical signs and complaints, she would ‘[a]bsolutely’ nonetheless have provided her the [device]”); Sackleh v. Johnson & Johnson, 2015 WL 12656837, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2015) (no causation given the prescribing doctor’s “additional testimony that, primarily based upon his analysis of plaintiff, he would have prescribed [the drug] for [plaintiff]”); Zimmerman v. Novartis Prescribed drugs Corp., 287 F.R.D. 357, 362 (D. Md. 2012) (no causation the place prescriber testified that “[g]iven what I do know as we speak, that there’s a doable affiliation between . . . [the drugs at issue in this case] . . . and [the risk], I’d nonetheless have handled [the decedent] the identical”); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2012 WL 2374644, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2012) (no causation the place prescriber nonetheless “believed that his determination to prescribe the treatment to plaintiff was the right one”) (making use of Maryland legislation); Ames v. Apothecon, Inc., 431 F. Supp.second 566, 568, 573 (D. Md. 2006) (no causation the place prescriber testified that “even as we speak, figuring out of the tragedy that befell [plaintiff] and of the arguments superior by her counsel, he would prescribe [the drug] for the same affected person”); Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F. Supp. 377, 384 (D. Md. 1975) (no causation the place “because of what [the prescriber] knew and the conclusions he drew from what he knew, it might have made no distinction if the warnings have been within the kind which plaintiff contends can be sufficient”), aff’d per curiam, 567 F.second 269 (4th Cir. 1977).

Massachusetts

In re Neurontin Advertising and marketing & Gross sales Practices & Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2010 WL 3169485, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2010) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “believes his prescribing of [the drug] to the plaintiff was utterly applicable”).

Michigan

None.

Minnesota

Kapps v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 813 F. Supp.second 1128, 1158 (D. Minn. 2011) (no causation as a result of “[w]ith that data, [the implanting surgeon] has not modified his habits after [plaintiff’s] process.  It follows that [the surgeon’s] receipt of that data earlier than [plaintiff’s] process . . . wouldn’t have modified [the surgeon’s] habits”) (emphasis authentic); In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Litigation, 1999 WL 628688, at *8-11, 15 (D. Minn. March 8, 1999) (multi-plaintiff case; no causation the place implanters “proceed to often carry out surgical procedures involving [the devices]”; “continues to make use of [the devices] . . . as a result of he believes that the advantages to his sufferers outweigh the issues”; “continued to make use of [the devices] after [plaintiff’s] surgical procedure and continues to have a good opinion of their effectiveness primarily based on his expertise”, and “believes that his skill to deal with his sufferers can be significantly diminished if he have been unable to make use of [the devices], and he continues to make use of them . . . regardless of their attendant dangers”), aff’d with out opinion, 221 F.3d 1343 (eighth Cir. 2000); Bruzer v. Danek Medical, Inc., 1999 WL 613329, at *6 (D. Minn. March 8, 1999) (no causation given implanter’s” testimony that he would have beneficial [the devices] whatever the existence or content material of any warnings offered by the Defendants”); Greiner v. Sofamor, S.N.C., 1999 WL 716891, at *5 (D. Minn. March 8, 1999) (no causation the place the implanter testifies that he “would render the identical advice to [plaintiff] as we speak that he did” when he carried out the surgical procedure).

Mississippi

Thomas, 949 F.second 806, supra; In re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2016 WL 7332760, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2016) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “testified that he would use [the device] if it was nonetheless obtainable”) (making use of Mississippi legislation); Cross v. Forest Laboratories, 102 F. Supp.3d 896, 905 (N.D. Miss. 2015) (no causation the place prescribing doctor answered “I don’t suppose so” to the query “Have you ever seen any info, any documentation, as we speak − do you’ve gotten any data about this medication as we speak as we sit right here that might have modified your determination to prescribe [the drug] to [the decedent] whenever you noticed him”); Smith v. Johnson & Johnson, 2011 WL 3876997, at *11 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 31, 2011) (no causation the place implanter “continued to carry th[e] opinion on the date of the deposition” that the gadget “was an applicable product to make use of within the remedy of” plaintiff’s situation), aff’d, 483 F. Appx. 909 (fifth Cir. 2012); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2011 WL 182489, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2011) (no causation the place plaintiff had a “lengthy historical past of . . . unsuccessful remedy on different drugs” and his “prescribing physicians testified that not one of the info they’ve since discovered about [the drug] would have modified their remedy”) (making use of Mississippi legislation); Windham v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 607, 612-13 (S.D. Miss. 1992) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that even when he had had the extra info contained within the revised route round, that he nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug]”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *23-, *34-48 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified:  “that he continues to prescribe [the drug]”; “he would have prescribed [the drug] once more to the Plaintiff”; “with all he has discovered in regards to the dangers of [the drug], he continues to prescribe and must Plaintiff”) (making use of Mississippi legislation).

Missouri

Vaughn v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 5816740, at *4 (S.D. Sick. Sept. 30, 2020) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “testified that even as we speak he believes the [product] was a secure and applicable gadget for [plaintiff]”) (making use of Missouri legislation); Abt v. Ethicon, Inc., 2020 WL 4887022, at *1, 3 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 20, 2020) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place implanter “testified extra warnings by [defendant] wouldn’t have modified his determination to prescribe” and that “he stands by his prescribing determination”); Carr-Davis v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 2013 WL 322616, at *8-9 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2013) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place the prescribing doctor “reaffirmed this determination by testifying that he continues as we speak to prescribe [the drug] to sufferers with circumstances just like [the decedent]”) (making use of Missouri legislation); Skibniewski v. American House Merchandise Corp., 2004 WL 5628157, at *5 (W.D. Mo. April 1, 2004) (no causation the place the prescriber “would have prescribed [the drug] even when the label change had been in impact on the time of the unique prescription”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *26-28 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “he continued to prescribe [the drug] till he retired”; “‘figuring out every part you presently learn about [the drug]’ he would nonetheless advocate it to Plaintiff”; “he would prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff if introduced in the identical method as we speak regardless of what he now is aware of in regards to the drug and its dangers and unintended effects”; “when confronted with numerous warning situations, he confirmed he would have nonetheless prescribed [the drug]”) (making use of Missouri legislation);

Montana

None.

Nebraska

McElroy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 495 F. Appx. 166, 168 (second Cir. 2012) (making use of Nebraska legislation) (no causation the place one prescribing doctor “continued [to prescribe] for greater than two years after the medical group knew or ought to have recognized in regards to the drug’s dangers” and a second “testified that he was totally conscious of the . . . dangers related to [the drug] however nonetheless continued to prescribe . . . and had even elevated the dosage”); Ideus v. Teva Prescribed drugs USA, Inc., 361 F. Supp.3d 938, 946 (D. Neb. 2019) (no causation “when a doctor . . . would have taken the identical course had warnings been communicated”), aff’d, 986 F.3d 1098 (eighth Cir. 2021); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *28-31 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  after “stud[ying] obtainable scientific literature[,] he left little doubt that he would have nonetheless beneficial [the drug] to Plaintiff”; “he would prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff if he have been introduced in the identical method as we speak regardless of what he now is aware of about [it] and its dangers and unintended effects”; “given what he is aware of of the warning(s) and Plaintiff’s [condition] he would nonetheless have prescribed [the drug]”).

Nevada

None.

New Hampshire

None.

New Jersey

Strumph, 626 A.second 1090, supra; Baker v. App Prescribed drugs LLP, 2012 WL 3598841, at *9 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2012) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescribing doctor “stood by his determination to manage [the drug] to [plaintiff]”); Appleby v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., 2005 WL 3440440, at *5-6 (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2005) (no causation, “Additionally compelling is [the prescriber’s] testimony that he would proceed to prescribe the treatment on the time of his deposition, nicely after [the drug] was briefly faraway from the market”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *36-39 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “have been he practising medication as we speak,” he would “completely” nonetheless prescribe [the drug]”; “however every part he’s discovered arising subsequent to litigation, he nonetheless prescribes [the drug]”; “given what she is aware of, and Plaintiff presenting ‘with the identical . . . situation,” she would nonetheless prescribe [the drug]”); see id. at *8-32, *39-48 (alternatively, New Jersey legislation utilized to out-of-state plaintiffs discussions in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 355843, at *7-8 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Jan. 29, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “figuring out of the dangers and unintended effects of [the drug] would ‘by no means forestall’ her from prescribing [the drug] to a affected person”; “even with alternatively proposed language she would have prescribed [the drug] to this Plaintiff and danger discussions would have been the identical”) (making use of New Jersey legislation) (additionally New Jersey legislation utilized alternatively to out-of-state plaintiffs; see discussions in California, Kansas, Louisiana, and Texas); Apel v. Johnson & Johnson, 2014 WL 10176352, at *17 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. July 25, 2014) (no causation the place “every prescribing doctor would nonetheless prescribe [the drug] to [plaintiff] as we speak”); In re NuvaRing Litigation, 2013 WL 1874321, at *22 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. April 18, 2013) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place the prescriber “testified . . . that she continues to prescribe [the device], and on the time she prescribed it to [plaintiff], she was conscious” of the chance).

New Mexico

Silva, 2013 WL 4516160, supra; Nowell v. Medtronic, Inc., 372 F. Supp.3d 1166, 1236 (D.N.M. 2019) (“any alleged inadequacy of the producer’s warning [i]s not, as a matter of legislation, the proximate explanation for the plaintiff’s accidents the place the doctor testified he would have prescribed the drug even when the warnings had been completely different”); In re Trasylol Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2011 WL 2586218, at *5 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2011) (no causation the place the prescribing doctor “was introduced with research and FDA experiences . . ., and he constantly testified that he seen them ‘with a grain of salt’”; had the allegedly withheld info been correctly disclosed to [the prescriber], the disclosure wouldn’t have modified [his] prescribing determination”) (making use of New Mexico legislation).

New York

Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 560 F. Supp.3d 774, 799 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “testified that he deliberate to proceed utilizing the [defendant’s device] even figuring out what he is aware of now”); Webb v. Zimmer, Inc., 2019 WL 438361, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2019) (no causation the place implanter “continued to make use of the Product for his [the same surgery], lengthy after the Plaintiff was [injured].  To at the present time, [he] stays assured within the product”) (quotation omitted); In re Plavix Advertising and marketing, Gross sales Practices & Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation No. II, 2017 WL 3531684, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2017) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “testified that having reviewed all of the related research concerning [the drug] he believes − even now − that prescribing [it] to [plaintiff] was essentially the most applicable medical remedy”) (making use of New York legislation); McDowell v. Eli Lilly & Co., 58 F. Supp.3d 391, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (no causation the place prescriber “testified {that a} completely different warning containing the knowledge Plaintiff alleges was lacking from the [drug’s] labeling wouldn’t have modified her determination to prescribe [it] to the Plaintiff”), reconsideration denied, 2015 WL 845720 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2015), and 2015 WL 4240736 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2015); Krasnopolsky v. Warner-Lambert Co., 799 F. Supp. 1342, 1347 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that he was totally conscious of the potential for opposed . . . reactions as a facet impact of [the drug], and that he would have nonetheless prescribed [it] for [plaintiff]”); Gentile v. Biogen Idec, Inc., 2016 WL 9820093, at *6-7 (Mass. Tremendous. July 25, 2016) (no causation the place plaintiff’s prescribing doctor “indicated in her deposition, the absence of warnings in regards to the three danger components . . . wouldn’t have altered her determination to prescribe [the drug]] to [the decedent]”) (making use of New York legislation); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *32, *34-35 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “he would nonetheless prescribe [the drug] sooner or later with out [plaintiff’s language] showing within the warning”; “a change within the label as mentioned by counsel wouldn’t ‘have made a little bit of distinction’ in how he prescribed [the drug] to his sufferers”; “even given the proposed warning, she would prescribe [the drug]”; “would prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff as we speak if he have been introduced in the identical method regardless of what he now is aware of about [the drug] and its dangers and unintended effects”; “no matter what he had discovered at deposition, he nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug] to Plaintiff”; “a label change wouldn’t have altered his determination to prescribe”) (making use of New York legislation).

North Dakota

Ehlis, 367 F.3d 1013, supra.  Be aware:  In In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *36-39 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (abstract judgment was entered for comparable causes towards a number of North Dakota plaintiffs, however the determination utilized New Jersey legislation).

North Carolina

Carlson v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2015 WL 5732107, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2015) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “testi[fied] that however what he knew in regards to the potential dangers, implantation of the . . . gadget was the suitable remedy for [plaintiff]”) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 856 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2017).

Ohio

Miller v. Alza Corp., 759 F. Supp.second 929, 936-37 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescribing doctor “testified unequivocally that he would have prescribed the [product] even when particularly warned”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *39-43 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “whatever the language, he understood there was an affiliation and nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug] to Plaintiff”; was “emphatic that he wouldn’t hesitate to prescribe [the drug] to a affected person with” the identical situation as plaintiff; “a labeling change wouldn’t have altered his determination to prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff”; “he would nonetheless prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff if he have been introduced in the identical method as we speak regardless of what he now is aware of in regards to the drug and its dangers and unintended effects”; “he would nonetheless prescribe Plaintiff [the drug] as we speak”; “stated ‘sure’ repeatedly, he would nonetheless prescribe [the drug]”; “he would prescribe [the drug] to a affected person as we speak if there have been introduced in the identical method as Plaintiff on the time”) (making use of Ohio legislation); In re NuvaRing Litigation, 2013 WL 1874321, at *38 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. April 18, 2013) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescriber testified “that he doesn’t really feel in a different way about [the device] and continues to prescribe it even after studying something he has about it since prescribing it to the Plaintiff”) (making use of Ohio legislation).

Oklahoma

Eck, 256 F.3d 1013, supra; Ingram v. Novartis Prescribed drugs Corp., 888 F. Supp.second 1241, 1245 (W.D. Okla. 2012) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescribing doctor “testified that had he recognized of [the drug’s] potential complication of osteonecrosis of the jaw, he would have prescribed it for [plaintiff] anyway; Stafford v. Wyeth, 411 F. Supp. second 1318, 1321 (W.D. Okla. 2006) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescriber “ was unequivocal in his latest deposition testimony on this case:  primarily based on plaintiff’s [characteristics], if [the drug] have been obtainable as we speak, he would prescribe it to her”); Woulfe v. Eli Lilly & Co., 965 F. Supp. 1478, 1485-86 (E.D. Okla. 1997) (no causation and heeding presumption rebutted the place prescriber “would have prescribed [the drug] even when the knowledge from the [foreign] bundle insert had been obtainable to him”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *8-32, *34-48 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “a special warning wouldn’t have altered the protocol he used when prescribing [the drug]”; “he would nonetheless prescribe Accutane to Plaintiff as we speak and that he understood the chance of IBD on the time he prescribed Accutane to Plaintiff”) (making use of Oklahoma legislation).

Oregon

Parkinson v. Novartis Prescribed drugs Corp., 5 F. Supp.3d 1265, 1273-74 (D. Or. 2014) (“quite a few courts have held an allegedly poor warning from a prescription product’s vendor can’t be the proximate explanation for the plaintiff’s accidents when a prescribing doctor would nonetheless take the identical plan of action if she or he had been in a different way or ‘extra adequately’ warned) (gathering circumstances).

Pennsylvania

Lineberger, 894 A.second 141; supra; Bock v. Novartis Prescribed drugs Corp., 661 F. Appx. 227, 232-33 (3d Cir. 2016) (no causation the place proof confirmed “that, even to at the present time, the medical doctors wouldn’t have managed [plaintiff’s] remedy any in a different way”) (making use of Pennsylvania legislation); In re Avandia Advertising and marketing, Gross sales Practices & Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 639 F. Appx. 874, 879 (3d Cir. 2016) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “unequivocally testified that he would prescribe [the drug] as we speak to a affected person who introduced as [plaintiff] did”) (making use of Pennsylvania legislation); In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 2012 WL 252838, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2012) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that, regardless of the dangers of [the drug], he believed that his determination to prescribe the treatment to plaintiff was the right one,” and that “[h]e continues to prescribe [the drug] as we speak in circumstances wherein he believes that the advantages of doing so outweigh the dangers posed by way of the treatment”) (citations omitted) (making use of Pennsylvania legislation); Owens v. Wyeth, 2009 WL 3244890, at *?? (Pa. C.P. Aug. 17, 2009) (no causation the place prescriber “unequivocally testified that recognizing all of the dangers related to [the drug], . . . he nonetheless would have prescribed [it] to [plaintiff]”), aff’d mem., 6 A.3d 572 (desk), 2010 WL 2965014, at *4-5 (Pa. Tremendous. 2010) (adopting trial court docket’s reasoning); Cochran v. Wyeth, Inc., 2009 WL 6411752, at *?? (Pa. C.P. July 15, 2009) (no causation the place prescriber “continued to prescribe [the drug] to all his sufferers even when [its] label acknowledged [what plaintiff claimed was] the chance”).

Puerto Rico

None.

Rhode Island

In re Zyprexa Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 277 F.R.D. 243, 250-51 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “testified that, regardless of the dangers of [the drug], he believed that his determination to prescribe the treatment to plaintiff was the right one”), aff’d, 503 F. Appx. 70 (second Cir. 2012) (making use of Rhode Island legislation).

South Dakota

None.

South Carolina

Odom, 979 F.second 1001, supra; Carnes v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2013 WL 6622915, at *5-6 (D.S.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (no causation the place prescribing doctor testified that “he nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug] for [plaintiff] had he been introduced with a stronger warning”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *45 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “a special warning wouldn’t alter his determination to prescribe [the drug]”) (making use of South Carolina legislation).

Tennessee

Ponthieux v. Danek Medical, Inc., 1999 WL 33486689, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Might 28, 1999) (no causation the place implanting surgeon testified that the gadget was “inside the usual of care,” its “advantages outweighed the dangers,” and “I consider in [plaintiff]’s case he obtained a superb end result”).

Texas

Centocor, 372 S.W.3d 140, supra; Guzman, 20 S.W.3d 717, supra; Medrano, 28 S.W.3d 87, supra; Ackermann, 526 F.3d 203, supra; Clowe v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 WL 799652, at *8-9 (N.D. Tex. March 16, 2022) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “testified . . . that, even had he obtained sufficient or completely different warnings concerning opposed results of the . . . gadget, it might not have modified his thoughts concerning the specified remedy for [plaintiff]”); Gutierrez v. Ethicon, Inc., 535 F. Supp.3d 608, 631 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (no causation the place implanter testified that:

figuring out every part he is aware of as we speak, i.e., all the [device’s] extra potential dangers, he would nonetheless prescribe [it] . . . he doesn’t second guess his determination to prescribe [the device] to [plaintiff] . . . regardless of studying of its extra dangers, he nonetheless would have introduced it to her as we speak as a viable choice, . . . he nonetheless would have performed that process figuring out all that I do know as we speak . . ., [and] he has no motive to conclude, even as we speak, that [the device] shouldn’t be the gold customary for treating [plaintiff’s condition])

(citations and citation marks omitted); Labiche v. Johnson & Johnson, 2021 WL 3719554, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2021) (no causation the place implanter “stood by her determination to make use of the [device] even when she had the data she has as we speak”); Hammett v. Ethicon, Inc., 2017 WL 1015848, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. March 15, 2017) (no causation the place implanter “acknowledged . . .3 that figuring out what he knew as we speak in observe, he nonetheless would advocate [the device] to [plaintiff]”) (making use of Texas legislation); Wolfe v. Ethicon, Inc., 2017 WL 2954274, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2017) (no causation the place implanter testified “that . . . there weren’t quite a lot of remedy choices obtainable for a younger lady like [plaintiff], and he felt ‘extra snug utilizing [the device] than not utilizing [anything] in any respect”) (making use of Texas legislation); Fox v. Ethicon, Inc., 2016 WL 3748509, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2016) (no causation the place implanter “testified that, even when he had obtained an sufficient warning concerning any [of plaintiff’s asserted risks], such warnings wouldn’t have modified his thoughts concerning his desired course of remedy for [plaintiff]”) (making use of Texas legislation); Solomon v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 916 F. Supp.second 556, 569 (D.N.J. 2013) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “reiterated that he wouldn’t have prescribed something completely different to Plaintiff figuring out what he is aware of about [the drug] as we speak”) (making use of Texas legislation); Koenig v. Purdue Pharma Co., 435 F. Supp.second 551, 555-56 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (no causation the place prescriber “testified that not one of the info proven to him since he final prescribed [the drug] would have modified his thoughts about prescribing it for [plaintiff]”); Gerber v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 392 F. Supp.second 907, 920-21 (S.D. Tex. 2005); (no causation the place “a special warning wouldn’t have modified [the prescriber’s] determination to prescribe [the drug] to [his patient] on the time he did so”); Dyer v. Danek Medical, Inc., 115 F. Supp.second 732, 741-42 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (no causation the place “after the [allegedly missing information] had been delivered to his consideration, [the implanter] was nonetheless performing . . . surgical procedures using [the] gadgets”) (footnote omitted); In re Norplant Contraceptive Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 955 F. Supp. 700, 710-11 (E.D. Tex. 1997) (no causation the place “all 5 of the prescribing physicians testified unequivocally that not one of the info proven to them . . . would have modified their minds about whether or not to prescribe [the device] for his or her sufferers, together with the plaintiffs”), aff’d, 165 F.3d 374 (fifth Cir. 1999); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 355843, at *17-24 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Jan. 29, 2016) (a number of plaintiffs; no causation the place prescribers testified that:  “he would nonetheless prescribe [the drug] to Plaintiff as we speak figuring out what he now is aware of”; “regardless of what he is aware of about [the drug] now, he would nonetheless prescribe [it] to Plaintiff as we speak if he was introduced in the identical method”) (making use of Texas legislation).

Utah

In re Avandia Advertising and marketing, Gross sales Practices & Merchandise Legal responsibility Litigation, 746 F. Appx. 122, 124 (3d Cir. 2018) (no causation the place “if he possessed this info at the moment [the prescribing physician] stated he would have made the identical option to prescribe the drug to [plaintiff]”) (making use of Utah legislation); Jeffries v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2018 WL 700799, at *4 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 2, 2018) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “testified throughout his deposition that, if he had been given extra details about the dangers of utilizing the [device], he nonetheless would have beneficial it to her”) (making use of Utah legislation).

Vermont

None.

Virginia

Stanback, 657 F.second 642, supra; Bailey v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 2345357, at *1, 6 (W.D. Va. June 8, 2021) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “stands by his determination to deal with [plaintiff] with the [device]”); In re Accutane Litigation, 2016 WL 5958375, at *8-32, *34-48 (no causation the place prescribing doctor “confirms that if the warning was modified, he nonetheless would have prescribed [the drug]”) (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Oct. 12, 2016) (making use of Virginia legislation).

Washington

Luttrell v. Novartis Prescribed drugs Corp., 555 F. Appx. 710, 711 (ninth Cir. 2014) (no causation the place “the prescribing doctor resumed [plaintiff’s] remedy [with the drug] after his growth of [his injury] and after the submitting of this lawsuit”); Rodman v. Ethicon, Inc., 2021 WL 2434521, at *5 (W.D. Wash. June 15, 2021) (no causation the place implanting surgeon “testified that she stands by her determination to advocate the [device] gadget to [plaintiff]” and “that she would have nonetheless beneficial the [device] if adequately warned of the dangers”).

West Virginia

Smallridge v. Johnson & Johnson, 2022 WL 1417313, at *4 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 31, 2022) (no causation as a result of “when requested, . . . years after the surgical procedure, if he stood by his ‘determination to implant [plaintiff] with [the device] . . ., [the implanting surgeon] replied unequivocally that he did: ‘Sure, completely.’”); Mullins v. Ethicon, Inc., 2017 WL 319804, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2017) (no causation the place implanter testified “that another warning wouldn’t have altered her determination to carry out the surgical procedure on [plaintiff]”).

Wisconsin

Stupak v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 2007 WL 4218982, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2007) (no causation the place prescribing doctor “testi[fied] that he would have nonetheless prescribed [the drug] however extra warnings or info concerning its potential to trigger” the chance alleged by plaintiff), aff’d, 326 F. Appx. 553 (eleventh Cir. 2009) (making use of Wisconsin legislation); Yakich v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2016 WL 743476, at *12 (N.J. Tremendous. Legislation Div. Feb. 19, 2016) (no causation the place the implanting surgeon “testified that she was conscious of the dangers Plaintiff has alleged led to his damage on the time of surgical procedure and she or he would nonetheless use the [device] if introduced with Plaintiff as we speak”) (making use of Wisconsin legislation).

Wyoming

None.

Given all of this precedent, as soon as once more, it’s no shock that we love – and plaintiffs hate – the discovered middleman rule.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments