330 F. Supp. 3d 616
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff Emmanuel Jackson, prescribed Risperdal from ages 11–13, alleges Risperdal caused weight gain, Type II diabetes, gynecomastia and high prolactin; he sued Janssen/Johnson & Johnson asserting multiple tort and warranty claims.
- Jackson's medical record shows weight gain and a diabetes diagnosis during Risperdal treatment; after switching to Seroquel his weight and prolactin levels decreased. Treating physicians noted alternative explanations (puberty, other meds, obesity).
- Jackson disclosed three treating physicians as experts late and produced no expert opinion establishing general or specific medical causation linking Risperdal to his alleged injuries.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts; Jackson sought more discovery (invoking Rule 56(d)) to obtain probate files and depose an additional doctor.
- The Court denied further discovery because Jackson failed to show additional discovery would produce the expert causation evidence necessary to defeat summary judgment.
- The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims because Jackson lacked the required expert proof of causation; the Court also held strict products liability claims are not cognizable under Massachusetts law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether additional discovery under Rule 56(d) was warranted | Jackson needed time to obtain probate files, review supplemental production, and depose another physician | Additional discovery would not produce expert causation testimony; Jackson had ample time and extensions already | Denied — Jackson failed to show further discovery would likely produce evidence defeating summary judgment |
| Whether Jackson has evidence of general and specific causation that Risperdal caused his injuries | Jackson relied on treating physicians and medical records to show causation and adverse effects | Defendants argued no expert testimony establishes general or specific causation and alternative causes exist | Denied — causation requires expert proof; Jackson offered none sufficient to create a genuine issue |
| Whether negligent failure-to-warn and other negligence/warranty claims survive without expert causation | Jackson contended warnings/representations were inadequate and causation could be inferred | Defendants argued causation is essential to negligence, failure-to-warn, warranty and consumer-protection claims | Denied — without expert causation these tort and warranty claims fail |
| Whether strict products liability claims (Counts III, V) are viable under Massachusetts law | Jackson asserted strict products liability against manufacturer | Defendants argued Massachusetts does not recognize a separate strict products liability doctrine apart from warranty law | Denied — Massachusetts does not recognize separate strict products liability; summary judgment for Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda-Rivera v. Toledo-Dávila, 813 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard)
- Hachadourian's Case, 340 Mass. 81 (Mass. 1959) (medical causation requires expert testimony)
- In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices, & Products Liab. Litig., 612 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2009) (distinguishing general and specific causation in pharmaceutical cases)
- Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 820 F.3d 469 (1st Cir. 2016) (expert testimony required when causation involves medical science)
- Mavilia v. Stoeger Indus., 574 F. Supp. 107 (D. Mass. 1983) (Massachusetts does not recognize separate strict products liability doctrine)
- Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. Crandall Dry Dock Engineers, Inc., 396 Mass. 818 (Mass. 1986) (elements of breach of express warranty)
- Laaperi v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 787 F.2d 726 (1st Cir. 1986) (negligent failure-to-warn framework)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 284 F.3d 281 (1st Cir. 2002) (fraudulent concealment tolling requires deliberate concealment and due diligence)