Dawn Bertsch Porter v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 08-11335 (11th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-11335 Non-Argument Calendar FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPT 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-01297-CV-JOF-1 DAWN BERTSCH PORTER, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Leland Langston Porter, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (September 9, 2008) Before DUBINA, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Eli Lilly and Company ( Eli Lilly ). Plaintiff Dawn Bertsch Porter ( Porter ) brought an action against Eli Lilly contending that it was responsible for the suicide of her husband, Leland Lee Porter, because Eli Lilly failed to adequately warn of the potential risks between the drug Prozac and suicide. We review a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo. Eley v. Baptist Hosp. Worth County, Inc., 199 Fed. Appx. 757, 758 (11th Cir. 2006). After reviewing the record and reading the parties briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly granted Eli Lilly s motion for summary judgment based on Porter s failure to produce evidence of proximate cause. See Powell v. Harsco Corp., 433 S. E. 2d 608, 610 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). Under Georgia law, Porter was required to prove that, but for the alleged inadequate warning, Dr. Wolfberg, decedent s physician, would not have prescribed Prozac to decedent. See Wheat v. Sofamor, S.N.C., 46 F. Supp.2d 1351, 1363 (N.D. Ga. 1999). Dr. Wolfberg unequivocally testified that even if he had read the warning that Porter asserts should have been given, he still would have prescribed Prozac to the decedent. Thus, we agree with the district court that Porter cannot prove that Prozac was the proximate cause of decedent s death. 2 Because there is no merit to any of the arguments Porter makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Eli Lilly. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
