Guide to Stahl v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 283 F.3d 254 (5th Cir.(La.) 2002)

This is a products liability case based on failure to warn of the risks of a drug.

The drug did what it was intended to do, and the side-effect was one that was well known, thus the claimed defect is a defective warning label.

What was the side-effect plaintiff suffered?

Is this serious?

Where was there a warning about this risk?

Did plaintiff see this warning?

Who was the warning intended for?

Why not warn the plaintiff directly?

What are the four ways a product can be unreasonably dangerous under the LA products liability act?

Which covers plaintiff's claim?

Does the LPLA control all strict liability claims for products?

What does plaintiff have to show to maintain a failure to warn claim?

Why does the worker's compensation act have an exception for intentional torts?

Why does the LPLA not exempt intentional tort claims?

What would be the intentional tort in this case?

What does plaintiff have to show to support a claim that the product is "unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition"?

What does Celotex require plaintiff to show to resist summary judgement?

Can plaintiff do that?

(NB - the manufacturer can only use warnings approved by the FDA.)

How does plaintiff say defendant should have modified the warning?

What testimony killed plaintiff's failure to warn claim?

Why is what his doctor thought of the warning so important?

Why does the court say this testimony leaves no jury issue?

Why is this testimony treated differently from an expert's testimony about the adequacy of a warning?

Defendant claims that LA law says that the warning is sufficient as a matter of law if the side-effect is mentioned. Why does the court reject this?

Why is the warning sufficient as a matter of law if the warning mentions the side-effect and the treating physician says he understood the risk?

What if the treating physician studies the literature and understood the risk, even it was not mentioned in the package insert at all?

Does the plaintiff have to develop liver failure and die to make claims that he should have been warned about them?

Why?

What does plaintiff have to show to make a failure to warn claim based on medical monitoring of side-effects?

What was the problem with the authorities the plaintiff's expert relied on to support his claim that the instructions were inadequate?