A.G. Ex Rel. Maddox v. Elsevier, Inc.
732 F.3d 77
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Two plaintiffs (minors) suffered permanent brachial plexus injuries and brought separate medical-malpractice suits alleging excessive physician traction; both trials resulted in take-nothing verdicts.
- The defense at both trials introduced a published case report (co-authored by Lerner and Salamon in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology) describing a similar injury absent shoulder dystocia or physician traction.
- After losing their malpractice suits, the plaintiffs sued the case-report authors, the employer, the journal, and the publisher under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 9, alleging the Case Report was false and fraudulently published and that the report caused their trial losses.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed, finding plaintiffs’ causation allegation implausible under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.
- On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint’s causal allegation (that “but for” the Case Report the plaintiffs would have prevailed) was a naked conclusory assertion unsupported by factual allegations giving rise to a reasonable inference of causation.
- The court emphasized that while the complaint alleged facts suggesting possible fraud (e.g., Lerner didn’t read records; conflicting hospital notes; Salamon’s testimony), those facts did not make plausible the critical causal link to the jury verdicts and did not show discovery would likely produce such evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleged causation (defendants’ publication caused plaintiffs’ trial losses) | Plaintiffs alleged the Case Report tipped juries against them and that causation is a fact question requiring discovery | Defendants argued plaintiffs pleaded only a conclusory "but-for" causation without factual support, failing Iqbal/Twombly plausibility | Held: Dismissed — causation allegation was conclusory and implausible; complaint fails plausibility standard |
| Whether conclusory allegations suffice to survive 12(b)(6) and open discovery | Plaintiffs: asserting causation suffices to require discovery to resolve fact-intensive issues | Defendants: plausibility standard requires factual allegations, not bare hope for discovery | Held: Iqbal/Twombly permit dismissal where allegations are threadbare; discovery not warranted without plausible facts |
| Whether fraud allegations (chapter 93A) were pleaded with sufficient particularity | Plaintiffs contended facts alleged (authors’ conduct, record inconsistencies) support fraud claim | Defendants contended even if fraud alleged, lacking causation defeats relief under ch. 93A | Held: Some factual allegations support fraud theory, but absence of plausible causation is dispositive; claim dismissed |
| Whether legal-malpractice analogies make causation non-speculative | Plaintiffs argued counterfactual trial outcome questions are commonly resolved and thus not inherently speculative | Defendants argued legal-malpractice causation still requires factual support and can be dismissed if conclusory | Held: Analogy unpersuasive; conclusory causation insufficient just as in legal-malpractice cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings requires factual enhancement beyond conclusory labels)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a claim plausible on its face; discovery justified only where facts raise reasonable expectation evidence will be revealed)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeping for expert/scientific evidence)
- Portugués-Santana v. Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc., 725 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2013) (dismissing complaint for failure to plead plausible causation in legal-malpractice context)
- Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (pleading standards under Iqbal/Twombly applied to dismiss conclusory complaints)
- Rhodes v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 961 N.E.2d 1067 (Mass. 2012) (Massachusetts decision discussing causation requirement under chapter 93A)