Ian Wallace v. Pharma Medica Research, Inc., No. 22-1375 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff contracted hepatitis C after participating in drug trials and screenings at Pharma Medica Research, Inc. (Pharma Medica) and other companies. He sued Pharma Medica for negligence, and a jury found in favor of Pharma Medica. Challenging the jury instructions and the district court’s evidentiary rulings, Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. Plaintiff appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff argued that the district court should have struck the expert testimony of Dr. Aronsohn and Glasgow-Roberts because Pharma Medica failed to timely disclose that it had sent the two witnesses certain documents, like the deposition transcript of Plaintiff’s expert witness and Plaintiff’s hepatitis C testing records, for review before they testified at trial. The court explained that even assuming Pharma Medica violated Rule 26(e), Plaintiff failed to articulate how Pharma Medica’s nondisclosures were prejudicial. Dr. Aronsohn’s opinion did not change after he reviewed the non-disclosed documents. And his trial testimony was consistent with his deposition testimony, which was given before he received the non-disclosed documents. There was no “unfair surprise” to Plaintiff, then, when Dr. Aronsohn’s opinion remained unchanged.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. In this action alleging plaintiff contracted an illness after participating in blood draws in programs run by defendant, the jury instructions on plaintiff's res ipsa loquitor claim were not erroneous; plaintiff's argument that the testimony of defendant's experts should have been stricken because defendant did not disclose it had sent the witnesses certain documents for review before trial must be rejected as the plaintiff could not show prejudice and the witnesses' testimony was basically the same as the opinions they gave before seeing the items; plaintiff could not show how a third witness's statement that defendant did not test its employees for the disease because the testing was not permitted under Missouri law prejudiced him or had any bearing on his res ipsa claim.
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.