Christine Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
739 F.3d 405
8th Cir.2014Background
- Baldwin developed ONJ after two teeth were extracted and sued Novartis for negligent warnings on Aredia and Zometa.
- Jury awarded Baldwin $225,000 in compensatory damages plus costs; Novartis appeals four issues.
- District court decisions covered causation, choice of law for punitive damages, hearsay, and MDL deposition costs.
- Under Missouri law, warnings must reach the doctor; Dr. Hueser prescribed in 2003 when ONJ risk was not in inserts, which were later amended.
- Novartis argued doctor reliance on warnings was intervening causation; the court held other warning channels could reach physicians and that a warning could alter behavior.
- Missouri law was applied to punitive damages, with the court determining Missouri has the most significant relationship to the punitive claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate causation from inadequate warnings | Baldwin contends warnings could have altered Hueser's prescribing. | Novartis asserts failure to read inserts breaks causation; warnings failures cannot be linked to injuries. | A submissible causation case exists; warnings could reach the doctor and alter behavior. |
| Choice of law for punitive damages | Missouri has significant relationship; punitive damages under Missouri law should apply. | New Jersey has interest; depecage applies; New Jersey punitive law could apply. | Missouri punitive damages law properly applied. |
| Admission of MedWatch forms as hearsay | MedWatch forms show early risk awareness by Novartis. | Forms’ checkmarks are inadmissible hearsay with no exception. | Harmless error; forms were cumulative and did not prejudice the outcome. |
| Litigation-wide costs in an MDL action | Costs for depositions should be awarded to Baldwin as prevailing party. | Costs should be allocated pro rata across MDL cases. | District court abused discretion by awarding full litigation-wide costs to a single plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krug v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 143 (Mo. 1967) (manufacturer must bring warnings to the physician)
- Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. banc 2011) (warning must show it would alter conduct; causation in failure-to-warn)
- Howard v. Missouri Bone & Joint Ctr., Inc., 615 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (substantial evidence standard for natural and probable consequence)
- In re Levaquin Prods. Liab. Litig., 700 F.3d 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (warnings may reach via channels other than physician reading inserts)
- Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 353 F.3d 848 (10th Cir. 2003) (evidence of warnings and physician behavior in causation)
- Dorman v. Emerson Elec. Co., 23 F.3d 1354 (8th Cir. 1994) (most significant relationship in choice-of-law analysis)
- Thompson v. Crawford, 833 S.W.2d 868 (Mo. banc 1992) (Restatement factors for choice of law in tort actions)
- Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2006) (allocation of costs in multi-case litigation)
- Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Inc., 569 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (applies apportionment approach to costs in MDL)