Wyeth v. Rowatt
126 Nev. 446
| Nev. | 2010Background
- Respondents Rowatt, Forrester, and Scofield, after long-term hormone replacement therapy, were diagnosed with breast cancer in Nevada, where they resided during diagnosis and treatment.
- Wyeth and Wyeth Pharmaceutical, Inc. manufactured Premarin and Prempro; respondents sued for personal injury and strict products liability, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, with damages bifurcated for punitive claims.
- District court applied Nevada choice-of-law rules, determining Nevada law governed, focusing on the last-event-necessary rule for slow-developing diseases; Wyeth challenged this analysis.
- Trial evidence presented competing causation theories: respondents claimed Wyeth’s drugs caused cancer; Wyeth argued cancer causation was uncertain with other risk factors present.
- Jury awarded $134.6 million in compensatory damages and punitive damages after malice/fraud finding; district court remitted compensatory to $23 million and punitive to about $57.8 million.
- Appeal contested choice-of-law, causation instructions, and the sustained awards, including alleged improper jury deliberations and remittitur adequacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law applicable to injury | Nevada is the place of injury due to late-diagnosis in Nevada. | Law should be where exposure occurred; other states could govern. | Nevada law applies; last event necessary for injury occurred in Nevada. |
| Causation instruction adequacy | But-for causation instruction should apply since only Wyeth’s act caused cancer. | Substantial-factor instruction appropriate due to multiple potential causes. | District court's substantial-factor instruction was harmless error; but-for instruction would have been proper, yet no reversible impact. |
| Remittitur and punitive-damages due process | Remittitur should be upheld; punitive damages properly tied to conduct. | FDA compliance negates punitive damages; awards excessive. | Remittitur upheld; punitive damages remain permissible; due process not violated. |
| FDA compliance as shield from punitive damages | Compliance with FDA labeling/tests negates malice. | Compliance does not automatically preclude punitive liability when deception occurred. | FDA compliance does not bar punitive damages; Wyeth’s deceptive conduct supports malice. |
Key Cases Cited
- General Motors Corp. v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 466 (Nev. 2006) (establishes Restatement (Second) choice-of-law framework for personal injury)
- Renfroe v. Eli Lilly & Co., 686 F.2d 642 (8th Cir. 1982) (place of injury for slow-developing disease is where injury is ascertainable)
- Countrywide Home Loans v. Thitchener, 124 Nev. 725 (Nev. 2008) (standard for reviewing damages ruling; emphasis on substantial evidence)
- Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556 (Nev. 2006) (punitive-damages review; factors including reprehensibility and ratio)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (guideposts for reviewing punitive-damages awards)
- Lehrer McGovern Bovis v. Bullock Insulation, 124 Nev. 1102 (Nev. 2008) (precedent on salvaging verdicts and discretion in motions)