Summary
dismissing construction claim because plaintiffs did not allege manufacturing defect in specific pills that were ingested
Summary of this case from Moore v. BASF Corp.Opinion
No. 08-30329.
March 13, 2009.
Lewis Scott Joanen, Bruno Bruno, New Orleans, LA, David L. Colvin, David L. Colvin Associates, Gretna, LA, Arnold Anderson Vickery, Vickery, Waldner Mallia, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
King Spalding, Atlanta, GA, Mark S. Brown, Washington, DC, James B. Irwin, Irwin, Fritchie, Urquhart Moore, New Orleans, LA, Tamar P. Halpern, Phillips Lytle, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 2:06-CV-3506.
Before GARWOOD, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
In this action brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"), LA.REV.STAT. ANN. § 9:2800.51 et seq., plaintiffs appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, the maker of the prescription drug Paxil. Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in applying the learned intermediary doctrine to their LPLA suit. We disagree. The district court properly followed our circuit precedent, which has expressly held that "Louisiana applies the 'learned intermediary doctrine' to products liability claims involving prescription drugs." Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 265 (5th Cir. 2002). After reviewing the briefs and the record and hearing oral argument from the parties, we conclude that the district court correctly applied the learned intermediary doctrine in this case. Consequently, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. See 5TH Cir.R. 47.6.