Rhodes v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc, 5:10-cv-01695

This is a product liability/failure-to-warn case alleging that Avelox caused Ms. Rhodes’ peripheral neuropathy after she took two pills in November 2009.
Plaintiffs contend Bayer manufactured Avelox and failed to provide adequate warnings under the Louisiana Product Liability Act (LPLA).
Dr. Chandler prescribed Avelox to Rhodes; he has been prescribing Avelox since 1999 and remains skeptical that warnings render the drug unsafe based on listed serious side effects.
Bayer moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing lack of causation evidence and qualified defenses under the learned intermediary doctrine.
The court excluded Dr. Hamilton’s causation testimony and found no admissible expert causation evidence, ruling causation is not established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Causation proof sufficiency	Rhodes lacks expert proof linking Avelox to neuropathy.	No admissible causation evidence; Dr. Kumar is not properly designated as expert; causation fails as a matter of law.	Summary judgment for Bayer on causation; no expert causation proof.
Learned intermediary doctrine applicability	Warning adequacy and physician causation should defeat the learned intermediary doctrine.	Warning was already provided; learned intermediary doctrine bars failure-to-warn claim absent proof that warning would have altered physician’s decision.	Learned intermediary doctrine bars the failure-to-warn claim; Bayer entitled to summary judgment.
Impact of warnings on physician decision	Different warning could have changed Dr. Chandler’s prescribing decision.	Plaintiffs failed to show that a different warning would have changed the physician’s decision.	Plaintiffs fail to prove but-for causation via warning; claim barred.

Willett v. Baxter International, Inc., 929 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1991) (burden to show warning would have changed prescribing decision)
Stahl v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 283 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) (learned intermediary doctrine framework for prescription drugs)
Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Services Corp., 628 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting in §56 context)
Boudreaux v. Swift Transportation Co., 402 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment proper where essential facts are undisputed or evidence is insufficient)
Johnson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 7 So.3d 734 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2009) (medical causation requires expert testimony when not within common knowledge)