Zuchowicz v. United States
140 F. 3d 381 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a defendant's negligent act is deemed wrongful because it increases the risk of a particular type of harm, and a harm of that very type occurs, this evidence is sufficient to permit a trier of fact to find that the negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
Facts:
- On February 18, 1989, Patricia Zuchowicz filled a prescription for the drug Danocrine at a Naval Hospital pharmacy.
- The prescription negligently instructed her to take 1600 mg per day, which was double the maximum recommended dosage of 800 mg per day.
- Zuchowicz took the 1600 mg daily dose for one month, followed by the 800 mg daily dose for approximately two more months.
- While taking the drug, Zuchowicz began experiencing abnormal weight gain, fatigue, a racing heart, chest pains, and shortness of breath.
- On May 30, 1989, a private physician instructed her to stop taking Danocrine.
- In October 1989, Zuchowicz was diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), a rare and fatal lung condition.
- Zuchowicz later became pregnant, a condition known to exacerbate PPH.
- She gave birth in November 1991 and died from PPH on December 31, 1991.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Zuchowicz filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- Following her death, her husband Steven Zuchowicz continued the suit on behalf of her estate.
- The district court held a bench trial.
- The district court found for the plaintiff, awarding damages of $1,034,286.02.
- The defendant, the United States, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 sufficient evidence of causation exist to hold a defendant liable when the defendant's negligent act increased the risk of a particular harm and that harm occurred, even without direct scientific evidence that the negligent act was the 'but for' cause of the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabresi, Circuit Judge
Yes, sufficient evidence of causation exists. Under Connecticut's 'substantial factor' test for causation, a plaintiff must show the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in producing the injury. When a defendant's action is negligent precisely because it increases the risk of a specific harm, and that harm materializes, a fact-finder can infer that the negligence was a substantial factor. The FDA sets dosage limits on drugs like Danocrine to prevent the risk of unknown side effects. The defendant's negligence was prescribing a dose far exceeding this limit, thereby increasing the risk of such harm. Zuchowicz subsequently developed a rare disease, PPH, which expert testimony linked to the drug based on the timing of its onset and by ruling out other potential causes. This strong causal link between the specific negligence (overdose) and the type of harm that occurred (an untoward side effect) allows the burden to shift to the defendant to show its negligence was not the cause, which the defendant failed to do.
Analysis:
This case is significant in tort law, particularly for toxic tort and medical malpractice claims where scientific certainty about causation is lacking. The court provides a crucial pathway for plaintiffs by relaxing the traditional 'but for' causation requirement in specific circumstances. It establishes that if a defendant's negligence creates the very risk of harm that subsequently befalls the plaintiff, a jury can infer causation. This effectively shifts the evidentiary burden to the negligent defendant to disprove causation, which is a powerful tool for plaintiffs facing the challenge of proving causation for rare diseases or injuries with uncertain etiologies.
Unlock the full brief for Zuchowicz v. United States