Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian

Garshasb Farsian (plaintiff) sued Shiley, Inc., and its parent company, Pfizer, Inc. (collectively, the valve manufacturer) (defendants), under various claims of fraud law, alleging the valve manufacturer fraudulently induced Farsian to undergo an implant of its valve instead of a competitor’s pig valve. Due to the risk of strut fractures that allowed uncontrolled blood flow through the heart, the valve manufacturer removed the valve implant from the market. Farsian alleged that the valve manufacturer claimed its valve was the best valve implant on the market despite a history of strut failures. Farsian claimed he would have selected another type of valve to implant had he known about the risk of strut failures. Farsian alleged the valve manufacturer hid and underreported adverse reactions and deaths due to the valve implant’s strut failures. Farsian also claimed the valve manufacturer participated in misleading marketing to physicians and the public. Farsian sought damages for the decreased value of his heart-valve implant due to its chance of strut failure, for his mental anguish, for his emotional distress, for punitive damages, and for expenses to undergo a procedure to replace the valve implant with an alternative valve implant. The valve manufacturer contended that Farsian’s claims were based in products liability and that they failed as a matter of law because Farsian’s implanted heart valve was still working properly. In the lower federal court, the valve manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied. On appeal, the circuit court certified to the state supreme court the question of whether Farsian could maintain his fraud claim against the valve manufacturer if his valve implant was working properly.