In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation
890 F. Supp. 2d 552
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Cheek and Farmer allege PPH caused by Wyeth’s Diet Drugs Pondimin and Redux.
- Wyeth seeks to enjoin their tort actions under PTO Nos. 1415, 2383 and to exclude causation experts under Rule 702/Daubert.
- Cheek ingested Diet Drugs for about one year; Farmer for about three months in 1997.
- Settlement Agreement defines a multi-part PPH threshold; eligibility requires meeting Part I.46.a and exclusion of known causes.
- Court must assess whether IPAH (idiopathic PPH) must be excluded under the Settlement Agreement and whether latency can be considered.
- Court considers whether to permit continuation of both cases and whether expert testimony on causation is reliable under Daubert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must idiopathic PAH be excluded under the Settlement Agreement? | Cheek/Farmer argue IPAH exclusion not required; they meet § I.46.a. | Wyeth argues IPAH must be excluded as a known unknown cause. | IPA H exclusion not required; plaintiffs meet PPH definition. |
| Are Cheek's and Farmer's causation opinions reliable under Daubert? | Rich/Rubin rely on IPPHS and differential diagnoses to link Diet Drugs to PPH. | Wyeth contends IPPHS latency and lack of epidemiology undermine reliability. | Opinions are reliable under Daubert; IPPHS plus differential diagnoses support causation. |
| Should Wyeth be allowed to enjoin the PPH claims under PTO 1415/2383? | Plaintiffs meet Settlement Agreement criteria and should proceed. | Wyeth may enjoin if criteria are met and evidence fails. | Denies injunctions; both actions permitted to proceed. |
| What forum and standard apply to causation proof for each plaintiff? | Cheek’s causation is litigated in MDL with Daubert; Farmer in state court under Frye. | Wyeth argues uniform application of Daubert across actions. | Farmer will be judged in state court under Frye; Cheek proceeds in MDL with Daubert standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc., 167 F.3d 146 (3d Cir.1999) (experts need not rule out all alternative causes)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct.1993) (gatekeeping for expert reliability; scientific testimony must be reliable)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct.1999) (flexible Daubert reliability standard; technical testimony permitted)
- Paoli R.R. Yard LItig. v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 35 F.3d 758 (3d Cir.1994) (differential diagnosis and reliability under Daubert)
- In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171 (D.C.Cir.1987) (MDL gatekeeping and expert testimony standards)
- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 131 S. Ct. 1309 (S. Ct.2011) (statistical significance not always required for causation testimony)