Tetuan v. A.H. Robins Co.
738 P.2d 1210, 1987 Kan. LEXIS 381, 241 Kan. 441 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a patient relies on a physician for treatment involving an ethical (prescription-only) device, justifiable reliance by the physician on a manufacturer's fraudulent misrepresentations or concealment of the device's dangers constitutes justifiable reliance by the patient for a fraud claim.
Facts:
- In September 1971, Loretta L. Tetuan's physician, Dr. Pfuetze, inserted a Dalkon Shield intrauterine device (IUD) without informing her of the brand or any specific danger of infection.
- A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (Robins) acquired the rights to the Dalkon Shield in 1970 and aggressively marketed it to physicians with claims of safety and a 1.1% pregnancy rate, despite possessing information indicating the rate was nearly five times higher.
- Robins knew early on that the Dalkon Shield's multifilament tail string had a "wicking" tendency, which could draw bacteria from the vagina into the uterus, but it concealed this defect and rejected suggestions for a simple, low-cost fix.
- In September 1979, Tetuan developed a severe pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Her physicians, unaware of the specific dangers concealed by Robins, did not immediately remove the IUD.
- After antibiotics failed, the Dalkon Shield was removed in March 1980, but the infection had caused irreversible damage.
- On June 25, 1980, Tetuan underwent a total hysterectomy, which included the removal of her uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries, rendering her sterile and requiring lifelong hormone replacement therapy.
- After early lawsuits revealed damaging internal documents, Robins' executives ordered a systematic program in 1975 to find and destroy hundreds of documents related to the product's defects, including the wicking problem.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 29, 1982, Loretta L. Tetuan sued A.H. Robins Co., Inc. and one of her physicians in a Kansas state trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on claims including negligence, fraud, and strict liability.
- On May 3, 1985, the jury returned a verdict for Tetuan, awarding $1.7 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages.
- The jury found Robins 84% at fault, Tetuan 16% at fault, and her physician 0% at fault, and specifically found in Tetuan's favor on the fraud count.
- A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas, arguing against the findings of fraud and the size of the damage awards.
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 manufacturer's fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment of a product's dangers to a physician, who acts as a learned intermediary, constitute justifiable reliance by the patient for a fraud claim, even if the patient was unaware of the product's brand or the specific misrepresentations?
Opinions:
Majority - Allegrucci, J.
Yes. Where a patient relies on a physician for treatment or advice regarding an ethical device, justifiable reliance by the physician on misrepresentations or concealment by the manufacturer constitutes justifiable reliance by the patient. The court extended the 'learned intermediary' doctrine, typically used in negligence cases, to the intentional tort of fraud. Because ethical devices like the Dalkon Shield are available only through physicians, the patient's reliance is placed on the doctor's professional judgment. The manufacturer's duty to disclose dangers and be truthful runs to the physician, who makes an informed decision on the patient's behalf. Therefore, when Robins deceived Tetuan's physicians by misrepresenting the Shield's safety and effectiveness and concealing its defects, that deception was legally imputed to Tetuan, satisfying the reliance element of her fraud claim. Furthermore, the court found that Robins' 'malicious silence' and failure to warn users directly for over a decade constituted an independent basis for fraud by concealment, as the company had a duty to disclose the known, life-threatening hazards of its product.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally extending the learned intermediary doctrine from negligence and failure-to-warn claims to the intentional tort of fraud. It establishes that a manufacturer of a prescription-only product cannot insulate itself from fraud liability by arguing the end-user patient did not directly rely on its misrepresentations. This precedent strengthens patient protections by allowing fraud claims to proceed based on the deception of their physicians. The decision also serves as a landmark example of the kind of egregious, long-term corporate misconduct—including active concealment and destruction of evidence—that can justify a massive punitive damages award, reinforcing the deterrent purpose of such damages in products liability law.
