Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10919
8th Cir.2012Background
- Ridenour alleges Mirapex (pramiprexole) caused compulsive behaviors 2003–2007 while on therapy for RLS; he took Mirapex from 2002–2007.
- In Oct 2007, after recognizing possible side effects, Ridenour told his physician and Mirapex was discontinued in favor of Requip; physician notes reflect concern about a possible link.
- Ridenour learned of potential claims via a personal injury ad in Oct/Nov 2009; he filed suit March 8, 2010 in the Eastern District of Texas, later MDL- transferred to Minnesota.
- Claims include strict liability (design, manufacturing, warning), warranties, negligence, negligence per se, and consumer protection acts in Maryland and Nevada; Nevada law governs limitations for all but the Maryland claim.
- BIP moved for summary judgment on a two-year statute of limitations; magistrate recommended dismissal; district court adopted, noting waiver of longer statutes arguments and potential bankruptcy impact.
- Ridenour appeals the summary judgment ruling, challenging accrual timing, waiver of longer statutes, and the strict liability limitation issue (ultimately, the strict liability claim is governed by Nevada’s two-year limit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the claims accrue under Nevada law? | Ridenour argues accrual occurred in 2009 after discovery. | Nevada accrual rule triggers in 2007 when concerns were first raised. | Accrual in 2007; discovery rule not applicable given inquiry notice. |
| Did Ridenour waive longer statute arguments by not raising them to the magistrate? | Ridenour should be allowed to argue longer statutes. | Waived because not raised before magistrate or on appeal. | Waived; longer statutes arguments not preserved. |
| Are most claims governed by a two-year period, with strict liability possibly governed differently? | Longer periods should apply to some claims. | Two-year period applies to most claims; waiver forecloses others. | Waiver precludes longer periods for most claims; strict liability analyzed separately. |
| What is the applicable limitations period for the strict liability claim? | Advocate for four-year catchall under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.220. | Nevada two-year personal-injury limit applies to strict liability. | Nevada two-year personal injury statute applies to strict liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Petersen v. Bruen, 106 Nev. 271, 792 P.2d 18 (Nev. 1990) (accrual when wrong occurs; discovery rule tolled in limited circumstances)
- Bemis v. Estate of Bemis, 114 Nev. 1021, 967 P.2d 437 (Nev. 1998) (discovery rule; focus on plaintiff's knowledge and inquiry notice)
- Massey v. Litton, 99 Nev. 723, 669 P.2d 248 (Nev. 1983) (discovery-based accrual; due diligence required to uncover claim)
- Fisher v. Professional Compounding Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (D. Nev. 2004) (applies four-year catchall in product-liability context (persuasive))
- Madol v. Dan Nelson Auto. Group, 372 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2004) (requirement to raise issues before magistrate to preserve appeal)
- Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2000) (claims must be presented to magistrate judge to be preserved)
- Borden v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 836 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1987) (magistrate-judicial process limits on raising new claims on appeal)
- Blakley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2011) (waiver effects on appellate challenge for failure to exhaust remedies)