992 F. Supp. 2d 68
D. Conn.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Margaret Fraser and Joseph Fraser sued Wyeth, alleging CTLA and related claims from Prempro use, including failure to warn, strict liability design defect, negligent failure to test, and negligent misrepresentation, plus warranties, CUTPA, and loss of consortium.
- Jury found Wyeth liable on those claims and awarded Fraser $3,750,000 and Fraser loss of consortium $250,000; punitive damages were ordinanceed and later amount set by court at $1,769,932.04 based on attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Court previously granted some summary judgment and later denied Wyeth’s Rule 50(b) motion; Fraser II established punitive damages framework and fee-cap ruling.
- Wyeth challenged causation, warnings, design defect, testing, misrepresentation, punitive damages, and trial conduct; Plaintiffs defended the verdict and requested post-verdict interests.
- The court denied Wyeth’s Rule 50(b) motions in full, denied remittitur/new trial, but granted post-judgment interest and denied post-verdict interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical causation sufficiency | Fraser causation supported by Graham and Levine | Insufficient data; method unreliable; endogenous hormones not ruled out | JMOL denied; causation substantial evidence supported by experts |
| Failure to warn proximate causation | Inadequate Prempro label; Dr. Tesoro relied on misstatements; warning insufficient | FDA label adequate; learned intermediary doctrine bars causation; alternative warning not shown | JMOL denied; evidence supports inadequate warning and causation |
| Design defect under state/admin standards | Potter modified consumer expectations test; comment k not a bar given lack of proper warning | Comment k bars; Restatement Third standard should apply | Not entitled to JMOL; design defect properly submitted under Potter framework |
| Independent failure to test claim | Failure to test is an independent tort under Connecticut law | Subsumed within failure to warn | Denied JMOL; failure to test recognized as independent claim |
| Punitive damages standard and due process | Punitive award warranted for reckless disregard; evidence supports | Due process violated; compliance with FDA standards; offends Bartlett | Not entitled to JMOL; punitive damages upheld and remittitur denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruggiero v. Warner-Lambert Co., 424 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2005) (admissible differential diagnosis requires valid methodology to rule in/out causes)
- Vitanza v. Upjohn Co., 257 Conn. 365, 778 A.2d 829 (Conn. 2001) (prescription drugs are unavoidably unsafe; warning/directions affect liability)
- Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199, 694 A.2d 1319 (Conn. 1997) (consumer expectations with risk-utility balancing for design defects)
- Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769, 675 A.2d 829 (Conn. 1996) (independent negligent failure to test recognized under CT product liability)
- Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33, 873 A.2d 929 (Conn. 2005) (negligent misrepresentation theory distinct from failure to warn)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (Supreme Court 2003) (due process limits on punitive damages; guideposts)
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S. Ct. 1589 (Supreme Court 1996) (three guideposts for substantialpunitive damages review)