Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., Civ. A. No. 79-C-93.
Decision Date | 14 July 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-C-93. |
Citation | 532 F. Supp. 211 |
Parties | Helen Anne LUKASZEWICZ and Thomas P. Lukaszewicz, Plaintiffs, v. ORTHO PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, and Johnson & Johnson, a foreign corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Charles W. Oppitz, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.
Edmund W. Powell, Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, S.C., Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants.
This is a products liability suit brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The plaintiff Helen Anne Lukaszewicz (hereafter "plaintiff") alleges that the defendant Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (hereafter "defendant") manufactured and sold Ortho-Novum, an oral contraceptive, in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff without giving her adequate warning of its possible side effects, and that as a result of her use of the product she suffered a cerebral accident on or about January 20, 1976.
In a decision and order issued March 31, 1981, 510 F.Supp. 961, of which footnote 2 was amended in an order issued April 28, 1981, the Court held that the defendant had a duty to warn patients directly, and not merely their physicians, of the possible side effects of Ortho-Novum in the manner provided in 21 C.F.R. § 310.501. At pages 3-4 of the March 31, 1981, decision (reported at 510 F.Supp. 963) the Court quoted from the language of § 310.501 as it is at present, and made reference in a footnote to the history of the regulation. The April 28, 1981, order amended footnote 2 to clarify the history of the regulation.
Defendant has now moved the court to amend the body of the decision and to further amend footnote 2 to incorporate the language of § 310.501 as it was when the plaintiff's cause of action arose in order to clarify the nature of the duty to warn owed by the defendant to her at the relevant time. The plaintiff has not opposed the motion and, therefore, for purposes of clarification of the decision and order issued in this action on March 31, 1981, as amended on April 28, 1981,
IT IS ORDERED that the decision and order is amended as follows:
1. The paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 3 of the decision and continuing on to page 4 (reported at 510 F.Supp. 963-64) is amended to read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Certified Questions From U.S. Dist. Court For Eastern Dist. of Mich., Southern Div., In re, Docket Nos. 68958
...See further discussion in fn. 9.In Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 510 F.Supp. 961 (E.D.Wis., 1981), amended by order 532 F.Supp. 211 (E.D.Wis.,1981), the court held that because the FDA required a warning to users of oral contraceptives, a manufacturer's failure to provide that ......
-
MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
...(intrauterine contraceptive device). But see Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 510 F.Supp. 961, 963, amended by order, 532 F.Supp. 211 (D.Wis.1981). The one court that went beyond the prescription drug rule, see Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., supra, imposed on Ortho the......
-
Kociemba v. GD Searle & Co.
...a duty pursuant to the regulation to warn plaintiff. But see Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 510 F.Supp. 961, amended, 532 F.Supp. 211 (E.D.Wis.1981) (holding that warnings to the consumer are required as a matter of law once 21 C.F.R. § 310.502 took effect on November 7, ...
-
Marvin v. Zydus Pharm. (USA) Inc.
...679 N.W.2d 867 (citing as authority Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals Corp. , 510 F.Supp. 961, 964 (E.D.Wis.1981), amended , 532 F.Supp. 211 (E.D.Wis.1981) ). See also Schmitz v. Canadian Pacific Railroad Co. , 454 F.3d 678, 682 (7th Cir.2006) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286 ......
-
The learned intermediary doctrine and patient package inserts: a balanced approach to preventing drug-related injury.
...oral contraceptives has a duty to warn the patient); Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 510 F. Supp. 961,965 (E.D. Wis. 1981), modified, 532 F. Supp. 211 (E.D. Wis. 1981) (focusing on federal regulations to conclude that the manufacturer of oral contraceptives had a duty to warn the user); ......