Globetti v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, Corp.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
111 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (2000)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
In 1993, Melissa Globetti (plaintiff) gave birth to her sixth child at the age of 33 years. Globetti did not want to breastfeed the child and was given 2.5 milligrams of Parlodel, twice daily for 14 days, to help suppress her lactation. Five or six days after giving birth, Globetti experienced chest pain and was taken to the emergency room. Globetti was determined to have suffered an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The initial cardiologist believed that the AMI had been caused by a spasm of Globetti’s coronary artery, and advised her to avoid medicine with vasoconstrictive effects. Globetti was otherwise healthy and had no family history of heart disease or other risk factors for coronary issues. Globetti brought a complaint against Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, Corporation (Sandoz), alleging that Sandoz had negligently provided her with Parlodel, which had in turn had caused her AMI. At trial, Globetti proffered expert-witness testimony that her AMI was the result of arterial spasms and that Parlodel was the likely cause of the spasms. Sandoz challenged the admissibility of the expert testimony, arguing that the expert opinions were not scientifically reliable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Putnam, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.