United States: Lipitor MDL Court Grants Pfizer's Omnibus Summary Judgment Motion: No Evidence of Causation

Last Updated: January 12 2017
Article by Rachel B. Weil

For those of us who spend large chunks of our professional lives in mass tort MDLs, expressions like "settlement inventory" are ubiquitous. It is too easy to lose sight of the fact that these expressions put the rabbit in the hat, assuming that resourceful plaintiff lawyers will necessarily queue up for settlement payments at the end of the day and disregarding the fact that plaintiffs are supposed to be able to prove injury and causation before money changes hands. And so we were especially pleased to read last week's decisions in the Lipitor MDL, in which the cautious and relentlessly thorough MDL judge granted defendant Pfizer's omnibus summary judgment motion, dismissing all but a single newly-filed case, because the plaintiffs could not meet their burden of proving that Lipitor caused their diabetes. (There are two decisions relating to different dosages of Lipitor. You can read them here and here.)

The Lipitor MDL, created in February 2014, centralized cases in which female plaintiffs alleged that Lipitor – prescribed in dosages of 10 mg., 20 mg., 40 mg., and 80 mg. – caused them to develop Type 2 diabetes. In March and April of 2015, as trials of two bellwether cases approached, the plaintiffs served common expert disclosures of general causation experts, followed, in May and June, 2015, by specific causation expert disclosure in the two bellwether cases. After full expert discovery, Pfizer moved to exclude all of these experts. Ultimately, the court excluded the plaintiffs' expert testimony on general causation with respect to Lipitor dosages of 10, 20, and 40 mg. The court also excluded the testimony of the bellwether plaintiffs' specific causation experts, finding that the experts failed to rule out other possible causes of diabetes and relied impermissibly on temporal relationships, and granted summary judgment for Pfizer on the claims of both bellwether plaintiffs. (You can read our posts on these Daubert decisions here and here.)

However, the court left one general causation "window" open, based on one study finding that it was more likely than not that patients with certain characteristics who took 80 mg of Lipitor would not have developed diabetes in the absence of Lipitor. Thus, though neither of the bellwether plaintiffs had the requisite characteristics, it was possible that a plaintiff existed who took Lipitor at the 80 mg dosage and who could proffer a specific causation opinion that would survive Daubert.

But, in a January 2016 hearing, the plaintiffs' lead counsel confirmed that no plaintiff in the MDL satisfied these criteria. With the agreement of counsel for both sides, the court issued an order to show cause to see if any plaintiff could differentiate her case in a manner that would survive Daubert based on the decisions that had already been issued. If no such plaintiff came forward, the court would grant summary judgment in all of the cases pending in the MDL. The court's order required any plaintiff who "disputes the position taken by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and asserts that her case can survive summary judgment . . . [to] provide notice to the court within 15 days of this order and set forth with specificity how her case is distinguished from the Court's [earlier Daubert rulings]. The Court will then promptly set a schedule in each case for identifying expert witnesses."

Eleven months later, not a single plaintiff had come forward in response to the order to show cause. Instead, in opposition to Pfizer's summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs argued that it was "theoretically possible that some unidentified plaintiffs may have some unidentified circumstantial non-expert evidence of specific causation." In response, the court gave the plaintiffs yet another opportunity to come forward with any cases that could survive summary judgment. Again, not a single plaintiff came forward. Instead, the plaintiffs filed an omnibus response arguing that no plaintiff other than the two bellwether plaintiffs had had an opportunity to "hire experts" or "prepare expert reports."

Obviously, the court rejected this argument, given the multiple previous opportunities the plaintiffs had not seized. The court did, however, provide the plaintiffs with a final opportunity to defeat summary judgment by submitting non-expert evidence meeting their burden of proving causation. Two sets of plaintiffs came forward. One group of plaintiffs submitted nothing but their Plaintiff Fact Sheets and some of their medical records. They contended that they were diagnosed with diabetes after taking Lipitor and they lacked some risk factors for diabetes, though they had others. At oral argument, their lawyer stated that this "was the best thing [he] could come up with non-expert evidence" and reiterated that the plaintiffs were not diagnosed with diabetes until after they took Lipitor.

The second group of plaintiffs initially submitted no evidence at all. They argued that summary judgment was precluded by the their Fact Sheets and health histories, relevant general causation evidence, and the substantive state law applying to each of their claims. The court entered an order requiring these plaintiffs to submit any evidence they wanted the court to consider. In response, the plaintiffs "literally dumped boxes upon boxes of documents on the Court, with no discernment or suggestion as to which documents they claimed precluded summary judgment." And, the (saintly) court reviewed all of the documents, "almost all of which were completely irrelevant . . . [including] pictures from colonoscopies, EKGs, and pap smear results."

Dosages Less Than 80 mg.: General Causation

As explained, the court had previously excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs' general causation experts as to Lipitor dosages less than 80 mg. However, plaintiffs ingesting lower dosages of Lipitor argued that alleged admissions by Pfizer were sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The plaintiffs' primary piece of evidence was a one-sentence e-mail by a Pfizer vice president including the comment that "atorvastatin increases the risk of diabetes." The court held that the email was, "at best, evidence of an association, not causation. An association does not equal causation, and epidemiologists engage in a rigorous analysis of multiple factors to determine whether an association is causal." (Citations omitted). Moreover, "even if the one-sentence e-mail indicated that [the Pfizer vice president] thought Lipitor caused diabetes, the Court finds such an email could not replace expert testimony when expert testimony is required by substantive state law. (You can read about another decision applying this principle here.) A single statement by a single employee (even a Vice President) in a single email about a single study is not the type of clear declaration" that is sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Nor was NDA data allegedly demonstrating an association between Lipitor and increased blood glucose levels, or a statement on the Lipitor web site about reports of elevated blood sugar levels, or a Japanese label insert acknowledging a possible association. In sum, the plaintiffs had no evidence sufficient to create an issue of material fact on general causation as to 10, 20, and 40 mg. dosages of Lipitor, given the court's earlier exclusion of the plaintiffs' general causation expert's testimony as to these dosages, and plaintiffs taking these dosages of Lipitor could not survive summary judgment.

Specific Causation: Expert Testimony is Required

This left the question of whether an 80 mg. plaintiff could adduce sufficient specific causation evidence to capitalize on the open general causation "window."

In response to the plaintiffs' argument that some of the applicable states' laws would permit them to survive summary judgment on specific causation without expert testimony, the court stated, "While the specific language used by courts vary to some degree, all jurisdictions require expert testimony at least where the issues are medically complex and outside common knowledge and lay experience." (The court followed this statement with a fourteen-page string cite of precedents from all 50 states.) The court emphasized, “Here, expert testimony is certainly required. Diabetes is a complicated, progressive disease with a number of risk factors. Plaintiffs' general causation experts cannot even figure out how to determine whether an individual's diabetes was caused by Lipitor or other factors, and Plaintiffs' specific causation expert cannot determine which people in a room of 100 people or 10 people had ‘statin-induced’ diabetes as opposed to non-statin-induced diabetes . . . . If these experts cannot make this determination, it is certainly not within the common knowledge of a lay person. A jury's finding of causation in the absence of any expert testimony would be based on impermissible speculation or conjecture." (Citations omitted.)

Expert Testimony on General Causation Combined with Non-Expert Evidence

But the plaintiffs argued that, in some jurisdictions, a plaintiff can survive summary judgment with a combination of expert testimony that a substance is a possible cause of the plaintiff's injury and "non-expert" evidence. The court conceded that this statement is true "as far as it goes," but held, "Plaintiffs have pointed to no such probative, non-expert evidence here." The plaintiffs pointed to the fact that "numerous plaintiffs" had "no history of diabetes prior to their initial Lipitor exposures." The court responded (we love this), “This is undoubtedly true. It is impossible that Lipitor would have caused a Plaintiff's diabetes if she developed the disease prior to ever taking the drug. However, the converse of this statement is not true. Plaintiff may have developed diabetes after taking Lipitor, after having a grandchild, after tasting crème brulee for the first time, or after she turned 65. However the fact that Plaintiff developed diabetes after these events does not allow a reasonable jury to infer causation, without speculation and conjecture.” (Citations omitted.)

In short, the court concluded, while there are times when a temporal relationship can provide compelling evidence of causation, "such circumstances are not present here. Plaintiffs developed diabetes months or years after taking Lipitor and they had other substantial risk factors for the disease. The Court has already found that the temporal relationship at issue here is insufficient to form the basis of a reliable causation opinion under Daubert. . . . Therefore, it is necessarily insufficient to create an issue of fact as to causation." (Citations omitted).

Finally, the court rejected the argument that it had overstepped its role as an MDL court by addressing specific causation and that it should remand the cases to their transferor courts. The court held, "This Court is familiar with the science and issues present and can dispose of the issues far more quickly and efficiently than dozens of courts spread across the country."

And it did just that. For plaintiffs who ingested Lipitor dosages of less than 80 mg., the court held that the supposed 'admissions' did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to general causation, given the court's earlier exclusion of the plaintiffs' experts' general causation testimony related to these dosages. For all plaintiffs, the court held that temporal relationships could not create a genuine issue of material fact as to specific causation. And so, despite being given many more chances than they deserved, the Lipitor plaintiffs found themselves, quite properly, out of court. We hope that the judge's uncommon patience and precision ensures that these unassailable decisions will withstand appeal. We hope that you will read the decisions with appreciation, and we congratulate Pfizer on this hard-fought victory.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions