Patteson v. Astrazeneca, LP
876 F. Supp. 2d 27
D.D.C.2012Background
- Patteson began treatment with Maloney in May 2006 for anxiety, depression, insomnia, and alcohol issues.
- Maloney prescribed Seroquel off-label to treat insomnia after trying trazodone.
- Seroquel warnings included tardive dyskinesia risk; label and PDR referenced by Maloney.
- By 2007 Patteson developed weakness and gait problems; diagnosis of tardive dyskinesia occurred in Jan 2008.
- Plaintiffs filed nine negligence-to-warn claims against Maloney and AstraZeneca in Sept 2010; AstraZeneca removed to federal court.
- The court grants AstraZeneca summary judgment on learned-intermediary grounds and denies Maloney on limitations; timely under continuing-treatment and discovery rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learned intermediary doctrine applies to AstraZeneca | Patteson argues overpromotion undermines warnings | AstraZeneca argues proper warning to Maloney suffices | AstraZeneca granted summary judgment on learned-intermediary basis |
| Overpromotion exception applicability | Overpromotion negates warnings | No evidence of overpromotion affecting warnings | Overpromotion exception not established; doctrine still applies |
| Continuing-treatment/discovery-rule timeliness against Maloney | Claims timely under continuing-treatment; accrual disputes exist | Limitations bar claims unless continuing-treatment/discovery issues resolved | Claims timely under continuing-treatment; discovery issues preclude summary judgment on timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Salmon v. Parke-Davis & Co., 520 F.2d 1359 (4th Cir.1975) (overpromotion may negate warnings in rare cases)
- Incollingo v. Ewing, 282 A.2d 206 (Pa. 1980) (sales efforts may minimize dangers; overpromotion evidence required)
- McNeil v. Wyeth, 462 F.3d 364 (5th Cir.2006) (warning sufficiency and learned intermediary doctrine)