In Re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Product Liability Litigation
706 F.3d 217
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Wyeth settled with diet drug users in a nationwide class action; PTO retained exclusive jurisdiction to administer the settlement.
- Settlement includes an exception allowing claims for PPH if the plaintiff proves absence of greater than mild restrictive lung disease via pulmonary function tests (PFTs) showing total lung capacity >60% of predicted at rest.
- Cauthens filed a state court suit claiming PPH from diet drugs; Wyeth moved to enjoin based on the Settlement Agreement.
- Dr. Fortin submitted a declaration stating Ms. Cauthen’s TLC was 56% and argued reference values are uncertain, suggesting possible PPH causation by diet drugs.
- District Court enjoined the state suit; the appeal challenges the interpretation of the PPH exception and the potential reformation of the Settlement Agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fortin’s declaration can substitute for a PFT to satisfy § I.46.a(2)(c). | Cauthens contend declaration confirms PPH causation. | Wyeth argues only a PFT showing >60% is sufficient under the Agreement. | Declaration cannot replace a PFT; settlement unambiguously requires >60% PFT. |
| Whether the Settlement Agreement should be reformed due to changes in diagnostic procedures. | Cauthens urge reformation because modern diagnostics differ. | Wyeth argues the issue was not properly raised below and waiver applies. | Waived issue; no exceptional circumstances to reform the agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn Distribs. Corp. v. Carlisle Plastics, Inc., 297 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2002) (contract interpretation from four corners; ambiguous contract standard)
- In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig., 233 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000) (plenary review of settlement agreements; contract law governing interpretation)
- Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. v. Union Carbide, 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (Daubert/Rule 702 standards for expert testimony applied to admissibility)
- Tri-M Grp., L.L.C. v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. 2011) (waiver rule for new arguments on appeal)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (change in factual or legal conditions may justify modification of settlement)