Wells v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

Max Wells invoked diversity jurisdiction and complained that GlaxoSmithKline had failed to warn him that one of its drugs— Requip — could make him gamble away millions. In support, Wells proffered testimony from three experts who would opine that Requip can cause pathological gambling in the general population. The company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the experts’ testimony did not pass scientific muster. The district court agreed — holding that even if the court admitted the expert testimony, the opinions would not suffice to create a fact…