Legal Opinion

Hahn v. Richter

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 28, 1996No. 32 E.D. Appeal Docket 1994PublishedCited by 84 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY1, Justice.

This is an appeal by allowance from an en banc decision of the Superior Court which affirmed a judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Upjohn Company (Upjohn), in a negligence and strict liability action brought by the appellant, Charles D. Hahn. The factual background of the case is as follows.

From 1977 to 1980, appellant was treated for back pain by Dr. Howard A. Richter. Treatment included several surgical procedures and a number of intrathecal (into the spine) injections of Depo-Medrol, a drug manufactured by Upjohn. A package insert accompanying…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Incollingo v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Incollingo v. EWINGSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Baldino v. CastagnaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Coyle v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by84 opinions

  1. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Lance v. WyethSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Creazzo v. Medtronic, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. In re Baycol Products LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2003

79 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API