Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 14-16321 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff's son died of Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL), an exceedingly rare and aggressive form of cancer, they filed suit alleging negligence and strict liability concerning the manufacture and distribution of drugs used to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to Teva, holding that the district court erred by excluding plaintiffs' causation experts' testimony. In this case, the district court looked too narrowly at each individual consideration under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), without taking into account the broader picture of the experts' overall methodology. The district court improperly ignored the experts' experience, reliance on a variety of literature and studies, and review of the son's medical records and history, as well as the fundamental importance of differential diagnosis by experienced doctors treating troubled outpatients. Furthermore, the district court overemphasized the fact that the experts did not develop their opinions based on independent research and the experts did not cite epidemiological studies. The panel reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Teva in regard to the duty to warn claim because there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prescribing physician's conduct would have changed with warnings from Teva and GSK. The panel declined to affirm the district court on four alternative grounds and reversed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
Court Description: Expert Testimony / Duty to Warn. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and the dismissal, as moot, of plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider, in an action alleging negligence and strict liability concerning the manufacture and distribution of drugs that were used to treat plaintiffs’ deceased son, Maxx Wendell, for inflammatory bowel disease. Plaintiffs alleged that the drugs caused Maxx Wendell to develop Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, and that the manufacturers and distributors did not give adequate warnings about the risks associated with the drugs. The district court granted summary judgment for Teva because the testimony of plaintiffs’ causation experts was not reliable and not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702, and because plaintiffs did not present evidence that Maxx’s prescribing physician relied on Teva’s warning labels. The panel held that the district court erred by excluding the experts’ testimony. The panel held that the district court looked too narrowly at each individual consideration under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), without taking into account the broader picture of the experts’ overall methodology. Specifically, the panel held that the district court improperly ignored the experts’ experience, reliance on a variety of literature and studies, and WENDELL V. GLAXOSMITHKLINE 3 review of Maxx’s medical records and history, as well as the fundamental importance of differential diagnosis by experienced doctors treating troubled patients. The panel further held that the district court overemphasized certain facts; and taken together, these mistakes warranted reversal. The panel concluded that the proposed testimony was sufficiently reliable, and plaintiffs’ experts should have been allowed to testify under Daubert, and admitted as expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment to Teva on the duty to warn claim. The panel held that under California law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prescribing physician’s conduct would have changed with warnings from Teva, and its predecessor GlaxoSmithKline LLC. The panel declined to affirm the district court’s judgment on alternative grounds, and held that Teva may raise the issues with the district court on remand. Finally, the panel reversed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, and remanded. 4 WENDELL V. GLAXOSMITHKLINE
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.