Braune v. Abbott Laboratories

895 F. Supp. 530

Ellen BRAUNE, Juli Ann Harnett, Elizabeth Rougny, and Kathryn Sullivan Lincoln, Plaintiffs, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., Mallincrodt Inc., McNeilab, Inc., S.E. Massengill, a/k/a Beechum, Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite-Aid Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Group, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Reid-Provident

Laboratories, Inc., Stanley Drug Products Inc., A Division of Sperti Drug Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants.

Barbara Beth JELLOW, Lynn Yarnall, Kerry Ellen Zahn, Katie King Larson, Lori Beth Minor, Susan Allsopp, and Eve Marie Colello-Moltzen, Plaintiffs, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Emons Industries, Inc., p/k/a Amfre Grant, Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., MeNeilab, Inc., S.E. Massengill, a/k/a Beechum, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite-Aid Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corporation, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a Reid-Provident Laboratories, Inc., Stanley Drug Products Inc., A Division of Sperti Drug Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a The Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants.

Mary SERRI, Tina Lee Babb, Laura Cassell, Michele Friedman, Cindy Nadelbach, Karen Proodian, Regina Sica, and Paige White, Plaintiffs, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., McNeilab, Inc., Mallincrodt, Inc., S.E. Massengill, n/k/a SmithKline Beechum, Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a The Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants.

Nos. 95-CV-0209 (JBW), 95-CV-0506 (JBW) and 95-CV-1230 (JBW).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

August 16, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Law Office of Sybil Shainwald, P.C., New York City by Sybil Shainwald, Letitia W. Clark, for plaintiffs.

Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York City by Robert D. Wilson, Jr., for Abbott Laboratories and McNeilab, Inc.

Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York City by Catherine Feehan, for Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc. and Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Schneck, Weltman, Hasmall & Mischel, LLP, New York City by Leonard F. Lesser, Edward S. Weltman, for Chromally American Corp. and Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc.

Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City by A. Edward Grashof, for Dart Industries Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co.

Beatie, King & Abate, New York City by Samuel J. Abate, Russell H. Beatie, Charna L. Gerstenhaber, Susan Kelty Law, for Eli Lilly & Co.

Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, P.C., New York City by Eric D. Statman, for Emons Industries, Inc., a/k/a Amfre Grant.

Cooper, Kardaras & Scharf, New York City by Lori S. Evenchick, for Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co.

Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, Detroit, MI, for Lannett Co., Inc.

Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, New York City, for Mallincrodt Inc.

Pitney Hardin Kipp & Szuch, Florham Park, NJ by Joseph E. Hopkins, for S.E. Massengill, n/k/a SmithKline Beechum Corp.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York City by Robb William Patryk, for Merck Co., Inc.

Law Offices of R. Patrick White, New York City by Bruce D. Margolin, for Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc.

Gladstein & Isaac, New York City by Robert L. Boydstun, M. Leeann Irvin, for Rowell Laboratories, Inc.

Law Offices of Henry R. Simon, White Plains, NY by Linda Trummer Napolitano, for Schering Corp. and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a Indus. Way Liquidating Corp.

Sills, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tischman, Epstein & Gross, P.A., New York City by Marc S. Klein, Bennet Susser, for E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, New York City by Richard Adam Schioppo, Randi Faith Seffinger, Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Uniondale, NY by Frank J. Giliberti, for Upjohn Co.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                              Table of Contents
I.  FACTS .......................................................... 537
    A. Babb ........................................................ 537
    B. Cassell ..................................................... 538
    C. Colello-Moltzen ............................................. 538
    D. Friedman .................................................... 539
    E. Harnett ..................................................... 539
    F. Larson ...................................................... 539
    G. Minor ....................................................... 540
    H. White ....................................................... 541
    I. Zahn ........................................................ 541
II. LAW APPLICABLE TO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS-BASED CHALLENGES ..... 541
    A. New York Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rule .......... 542
      1. Statute.................................................... 542
      2. Awareness that "injury" was due to human cause ............ 543
         a. Language of the statute ................................ 543
         b. Precedents ............................................. 545
         c. Comparison of sections 214-c(2) and 214-c(4) ........... 546
         d. Legislative design ..................................... 547
         e. Policy ................................................. 551
         f. Likely New York Court of Appeals' construction ......... 553

     B. Standard of Constructive Knowledge .................................................. 554
     C. Two-Injury Rule ..................................................................... 555
     D. Jury Resolution of Factual Disputes ................................................. 556
     E. Suits by Nonresidents ............................................................... 557
        1. Borrowing statute ................................................................ 557
           a. Applicability to section 214-c ................................................ 557
           b. Date and place of accrual ..................................................... 558
               i. Place of encounter with harmful instrumentality ........................... 559
              ii. Place where injury is perceived ........................................... 559
             iii. Place where viable cause of action becomes possible ....................... 560
              iv. Place of "last event" ..................................................... 561
               v. Place where injury was manifested ......................................... 562
              vi. Possible applicability of "interest" analysis once New York is ruled out as
                  accrual jurisdiction ...................................................... 565
             vii. Place most favorable to defendant ......................................... 566
           c. Jury resolution of factual disputes ........................................... 566
        2. Other states' statutes of limitations ............................................ 566
           a. Harnett ....................................................................... 567
           b. Larson ........................................................................ 567
III. APPLICATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS LAW TO FACTS...................................... 567
     A. Babb ................................................................................ 567
     B. Cassell ............................................................................. 567
     C. Colello-Moltzen ..................................................................... 568
     D. Friedman ............................................................................ 568
     E. Harnett ............................................................................. 568
     F. Larson .............................................................................. 568
     G. Zahn ................................................................................ 568
 IV. SUBSTANTIVE CHALLENGES-HARNETT, MINOR AND WHITE ........................................ 569
  V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 569

Defendants, formerly producers for use in pregnancy of diethylstilbestrol (DES), seek summary judgment against nine of nineteen plaintiffs in three separate actions. They assert statute of limitations defenses and the applicability, under choice-of-law principles, of substantive law that arguably...