Boehm v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 13-1350 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, after being diagnosed with tardive dyskinesia (TD), filed suit against Lilly, manufacturer of the antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa, alleging personal injury and product liability claims. The district court concluded that Lilly adequately warned plaintiff's treating and prescribing physicians of the risk of developing movement disorders like TD. On appeal, plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the district court erred in excluding his expert opinion testimony that 15% of Zyprexa users will develop TD after three years of use. The court concluded that the district court was well within its substantial discretion to conclude that plaintiff had not provided sufficient scientific support for the opinion and to exclude the opinion. The court also concluded that the district court properly applied the learned intermediary doctrine in dismissing the failure-to-warn claim. Finally, assuming Arkansas law recognized an overpromotion exception, the exception would not apply in this case because plaintiff presented no evidence that any representation by a salesperson affected a prescribing doctor's decision to continue plaintiff on Zyprexa and because there was no reliable evidence that Zyprexa had significantly more risk of movement disorders than the drug reps allegedly said it had. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.
Court Description: Civil case - Products liability. In action alleging defendant failed to warn treating and prescribing physicians of the risk that long-term use of the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa could lead patients to develop tardive dyskinesia, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding plaintiff's expert's testimony that 15% of users would develop the condition as the testimony was not supported by sufficient scientific data or sources; the district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim based on Arkansas's learned intermediary doctrine; assuming Arkansas would recognize an "over-promtion" exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, there was no evidence that defendant over-promoted the drug, thereby negating an otherwise adequate warning of risk.
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.