Ray v. Allergan, Inc.
3:10-cv-00136
| E.D. Va. | Jun 1, 2012Background
- Ray sued Allergan for injuries from three Botox injections in 2007 for a dystonic hand movement disorder; Allergan moved to a new trial after a verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages was entered in 2011; the court reduced punitive damages to the Virginia statutory maximum; the core liability issue concerned warning adequacy and whether a black box warning should have been required or prominently displayed; the court analyzed FDA labeling regulations, including pre- and post-2006 guidelines, and potential FDA-approval requirements for label changes; the court granted Allergan’s Rule 59 motion for a new trial on several grounds centering on the black box warning issue and closing arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new trial is warranted based on prejudicial handling of the warning issue. | Ray argued Allergan could have required or prominently displayed a warning. | Allergan argued the error was improper use of a black box warning and related jury instructions. | New trial granted on warning-related issues. |
| Whether Ray's closing arguments violated Golden Rule and due process standards. | Ray's closing urged jurors to empathize with Ray and others. | Such closings violated Leathers and Williams standards. | New trial granted due to improper closing arguments. |
| Whether the court should resolve preemption under PLIVAMensing in the Rule 59 motion. | Preemption applied to Ray's failure-to-warn claim. | Preemption issue not properly resolved in a Rule 59 motion. | Preemption issue not decided in this Rule 59 ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leathers v. General Motors Corp., 546 F.2d 1083 (4th Cir. 1976) (Golden Rule closing argument barred; potential prejudice.)
- Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (Supreme Court 2007) (Punitive damages may not punish nonparties; due process constraint.)
- Dennis v. Gen. Elec. Corp., 762 F.2d 365 (4th Cir. 1985) (Contemporaneous objection rule relaxed under certain circumstances.)
- Werner v. The Upjohn Company, Inc., 628 F.2d 848 (4th Cir. 1980) (Rule 407 closing-argument concerns; conflicting precedents harmonized.)
- Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940) (Contemporaneous objection principle and exception framework.)