226 F. Supp. 3d 557
D.S.C.2017Background
- This MDL centralizes cases by female plaintiffs alleging Lipitor (atorvastatin) caused new-onset Type 2 diabetes and that Pfizer failed to warn. MDL formed Feb. 18, 2014.
- Extensive common and case-specific discovery occurred; parties litigated both general and specific causation with expert testimony central to both issues.
- Court excluded plaintiffs’ specific-causation experts (Drs. Murphy and Handshoe) as unreliable under Daubert for relying on temporal association and failing to rule out alternative causes; general-causation testimony for Lipitor 80 mg was allowed for the motion’s purpose.
- The court repeatedly ordered plaintiffs to identify any individual cases that could survive summary judgment (CMO 65, 81, 82); plaintiffs had multiple opportunities but largely failed to present admissible case-specific evidence or expert opinions.
- Plaintiffs argued some claims could proceed without expert testimony or should be remanded; court held expert proof is generally required for medically complex causation like diabetes and found plaintiffs’ non-expert evidence (temporal proximity, PFSs, records) insufficient.
- Court granted defendant’s omnibus summary-judgment motion in part and dismissed with prejudice the claims listed in Appendix 1 (plaintiffs who allegedly took 80 mg prior to diagnosis).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove specific causation for diabetes in these product cases | Some plaintiffs argued causation can be proven by lay evidence or an expert saying the drug is a possible cause; some pointed to state law variance (e.g., New Mexico) | Expert testimony is required because diabetes causation is medically complex and beyond lay knowledge | Expert testimony is required; lay evidence alone is insufficient here |
| Whether plaintiffs can survive summary judgment by combining general-causation expert proof (drug can cause diabetes) with non-expert, case-specific evidence (timing, PFS, records) | Non-expert evidence (no prior diabetes, diagnosis after Lipitor, limited risk factors) plus general-causation expert (Dr. Singh) can yield a jury question | Temporal proximity and PFS assertions are speculative and inadequate to prove individual causation without reliable case-specific expert methodology | Temporal association + general-causation expert is insufficient; plaintiffs’ non-expert evidence does not create a genuine factual dispute |
| Whether Daubert exclusions of plaintiffs’ specific-causation experts (Murphy, Handshoe) preclude all cases in MDL from surviving summary judgment | Plaintiffs contended some plaintiffs might rely on non-expert proofs or state-law exceptions and requested remand | Pfizer argued no plaintiff identified evidence or experts that would survive Daubert; move for summary judgment appropriate | Court found no plaintiff timely identified admissible expert or adequate non-expert evidence; summary judgment appropriate for listed plaintiffs |
| Whether the MDL court should remand rather than resolve case-specific dispositive issues | Plaintiffs urged remand to transferor courts for case-specific proceedings | Defendant argued MDL transferee judge has authority to rule on common dispositive issues and remand would be inefficient | Court declined remand; MDL court may and should resolve common dispositive issues to promote efficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 602 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding exclusion of expert who relied on temporal association and failed to rule out alternative causes in diabetes claim)
- Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 289 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2002) (pharmaceutical causation not within lay knowledge; expert proof required)
- McClain v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (temporal relationship alone insufficient to prove causation)
- Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897 (U.S. 2015) (MDL pretrial proceedings may produce final decisions; transferred actions must be remanded unless terminated)
- Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1998) (limits on §1407 transfer back to originating courts but does not prevent MDL court from ruling on pretrial dispositive motions)