Kendall v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
209 N.J. 173
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Kendall sued Hoffman-LaRoche et al. in 2005 for injuries from Accutane use.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as time-barred; Lopez hearing held and court ruled timely filing was reasonable.
- Appellate Division upheld timeliness but reversed other trial rulings; case certified on timeliness.
- Issue centers on whether FDA-approved warnings and the PLA presumption of adequacy affect discovery-rule analysis.
- Court must decide if Kendall reasonably remained unaware Accutane caused her IBD by December 21, 2003, making December 21, 2005 timely; the PLA presumption may be overcome.
- Kendall's six-year treatment history, last 2003 warnings, and lack of IBD notification to doctors informed the discovery-rule assessment; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of PLA presumption in discovery rule | Presumption not dispositive; overcome by evidence | Presumption should be dispositive or near-conclusive | Presumption treated as rebuttable, not dispositive |
| Timeliness under Lopez discovery rule | Reasonable person wouldn’t know by 2003 | Knowledge of warning suffices; accrual earlier | Timeliness affirmed; Kendall not aware by Dec 2003 |
| FDA warnings and discovery accrual | FDA-approved warnings informed plaintiff | Warnings insufficient to alert plaintiff | Warnings considered but not controlling; discovery rule satisfied by circumstances |
| Impact of 2003 warnings on a minor patient | Lacked explicit IBD reference, but warnings still relevant | Explicit linkage required for accrual | Court found 2003 warnings insufficient to establish accrual by 2003; filing timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (N.J. 1973) (sets Lopez discovery-rule framework for accrual timing)
- Perez v. Wyeth Labs., 161 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1999) (FDA compliance creates presumption of adequacy; rebuttable)
- Caravaggio v. D'Agostini, 166 N.J. 237 (N.J. 2001) (discovery rule and diagnostic-fault considerations in accrual)
- Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434 (N.J. 1961) (early discovery-rule principles for medical causation)
- Baird v. Am. Med. Optics, 155 N.J. 54 (N.J. 1998) (when fault awareness triggers accrual under discovery rule)
- Vispisiano v. Ashland Chem. Co., 107 N.J. 416 (N.J. 1987) (requires reasonable medical information linking injury to fault for accrual)
- Rowe v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 189 N.J. 615 (N.J. 2007) (rebalances PLA; FDA warnings inform adequacy considerations)