Motus v. Pfizer Inc.
196 F. Supp. 2d 984 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California law, a plaintiff in a prescription drug failure-to-warn case must affirmatively prove that an adequate warning would have altered the prescribing physician's conduct. California does not apply a rebuttable presumption that a physician would have read and heeded an adequate warning.
Facts:
- On November 6, 1998, Victor Motus visited his physician, Dr. Gerald Trostler, appearing depressed and frustrated over significant financial losses.
- Dr. Trostler diagnosed Mr. Motus with moderate depression but did not believe he was suicidal.
- Dr. Trostler prescribed Zoloft and gave Mr. Motus a sample packet he had received from Pfizer, which did not have a warning printed on it.
- Dr. Trostler did not provide Mr. Motus with a package insert or any other written materials, nor did he verbally warn him that Zoloft could be associated with an increased risk of suicide.
- Dr. Trostler testified that his decision to prescribe Zoloft was based solely on his own 'training and experience' and that he did not rely on any statements or materials provided by Pfizer.
- Dr. Trostler admitted that he had not reviewed the package insert for Zoloft until after Mr. Motus's death.
- Prior to prescribing the drug, Dr. Trostler was generally aware of claims linking drugs like Zoloft to suicide but discounted them based on his personal experience.
- Six days after receiving the prescription, on November 12, 1998, Victor Motus committed suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Flora Motus, the widow of Victor Motus, sued Pfizer Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the trial court of first instance.
- The complaint alleged claims for wrongful death/negligence, strict liability, a survival action, fraud, and breach of warranty.
- Pfizer moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ms. Motus could not prove that its alleged failure to warn caused the injury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff establish the element of causation in a failure-to-warn claim against a prescription drug manufacturer where the prescribing physician testifies that he did not rely on the manufacturer's information and there is no other evidence he would have acted differently had an adequate warning been provided?
Opinions:
Majority - Matz, District Judge
No. A plaintiff fails to establish causation in a failure-to-warn claim where there is no evidence that an adequate warning would have changed the prescribing physician's behavior. The court first determined that California law does not apply the 'rebuttable presumption' that a physician would have heeded an adequate warning, which would have shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, Pfizer. Therefore, the plaintiff, Ms. Motus, retained the full burden of producing affirmative evidence that Pfizer's allegedly inadequate warning was a 'substantial factor' in her husband's death. The court found she failed to meet this burden because the prescribing physician, Dr. Trostler, unequivocally testified that he did not rely on any information from Pfizer when deciding to prescribe Zoloft; instead, he relied on his own clinical experience. Since Dr. Trostler did not read or rely on Pfizer's materials, the court reasoned that a different or stronger warning within those materials could not have affected his decision-making process. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a jury should decide the doctor's credibility, finding his testimony clear and noting the plaintiff's attorney failed to ask the dispositive question of whether Dr. Trostler would have still prescribed Zoloft had he been aware of a stronger warning.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the plaintiff's burden of proving causation in prescription drug failure-to-warn cases under California law. By explicitly rejecting the 'heeding presumption,' the court solidifies that a plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment merely by showing a warning was inadequate. The ruling underscores the critical importance of the prescribing physician's deposition testimony, as it can be dispositive on the issue of causation. Future plaintiffs in similar cases must elicit testimony or produce other evidence demonstrating that the specific physician would have altered their prescribing conduct, a difficult hurdle if the physician testifies they did not rely on the manufacturer's information.
