Legal Opinion
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,366 Betty L. Odom v. G.D. Searle & Company
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided November 20, 1992No. 92-1085PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
The plaintiff in this case, Mrs. Betty Odom, became sterile as a result of two ectopic pregnancies, which she claims were caused by an intrauterine device manufactured by G.D. Searle & Company. She has sued Searle on a failure-to-warn theory. The district court granted Searle’s motion for summary judgment because “plaintiff has presented nothing to establish a causative link between the alleged failure to warn and the decision by the plaintiffs physician to prescribe the product.” We agree that plaintiff has failed to show that her doctor would not have…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,013 Mary Kathryn Thomas v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- Beatrice G. Stanback v. Parke, Davis and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
- Walter R. Brooks, Jr. v. Medtronic, Inc., a Corporation, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Amicus CuriaeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
3Cited by36 opinions
- Demmler v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Harden v. Danek Medical, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
- Rimbert v. Eli Lilly and Co.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2008
- Bennett v. MadakasiraMississippi Supreme Court · 2002
- Nowell v. Medtronic Inc.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2019
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.