Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
922 F. Supp. 1261 (1996)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Implant recipients of a Bjork-Shiley heart valve and their spouses (plaintiffs) brought a class-action products-liability action against the valve’s manufacturer, Pfizer, Inc. (defendant), alleging negligence, strict liability, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress after 450 of some 50,000-100,00 such implanted devices failed and resulted in approximately 300 deaths. All class-action valve recipients were living and had properly functioning valves when the suit was filed. And although Pfizer had successfully settled and defended numerous previous fracture and nonfracture valve cases, growing negative media coverage and mounting congressional hearings and litigation costs caused Pfizer to negotiate a proposed settlement with the valve recipients and their spouses. The proposed settlement agreement divided the class members into three groups: (1) recipients who qualify for valve replacement (explanation) surgery; (2) recipients who do not qualify for explanation surgery and their spouse; and (3) recipients whose valves fractured.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nangle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
