Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of $20 Million Product Liability Lawsuit Based on Statute of Limitations

August 4, 2011

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of $20 Million Product Liability Lawsuit Based on Statute of Limitations

On July 28, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a trial court’s ruling, dismissing a personal injury plaintiff’s product liability lawsuit for more than $20 million in damages against several pharmaceutical companies, Gazal v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,et al., No. 10-3129.  Nilan Johnson Lewis’ Scott Smith successfully argued the appeal before the Eighth Circuit on behalf of all of the pharmaceutical companies.

In Gazal, the plaintiff, an Australian businessman, began taking Mirapex® in 2002 for treatment of his Parkinson’s Disease symptoms.  Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff developed compulsive gambling but stayed on the drug, even after learning in 2005 of scientific studies suggesting a possible association between his compulsive gambling and Mirapex®.  Ultimately, plaintiff stopped taking Mirapex® and brought suit against the drug’s manufacturers in 2009, claiming that he had suffered over $20 million in gambling losses.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff’s action was barred by the expiration of Texas’ two-year statute of limitations – Texas being where he was prescribed and bought Mirapex®.  In response, plaintiff argued that his lawsuit accrued not in 2005 but in 2008, when a broader scientific study focusing on the relationship between compulsive behaviors and Mirapex® was published, and was therefore timely filed when commenced in 2009.  Rejecting plaintiff’s argument, the Eighth Circuit held that, even if plaintiff could not prove its claim at trial without the 2008 study, the key issue for statute of limitations purposes was when plaintiff was on notice of his injury and its possible causal relationship to his Mirapex® use, which the court concluded occurred in 2005 when plaintiff admittedly learned of the earlier scientific studies.

According to Smith, the Eighth Circuit’s decision is significant because it recognizes that statutes of limitations provide important benefits to both sides – they allow plaintiffs a reasonable period to discover their injuries and what may have caused them, and defendants the promise of repose after the limitations period has expired.  “Too often,” Smith states, “plaintiffs and some courts wrongly see statutes of limitations as an unfair procedural ‘gotcha’ that allow defendants to escape liability.  The Eighth Circuit’s decision in Gazal acknowledges that preventing stale lawsuits, and denying plaintiffs an essentially-unlimited time period to bring personal injury claims, also serves the interests of justice.”

Although Gazal involved the application and interpretation of Texas’ statutes of limitations, Smith has also extensively litigated, and written and spoken on, Minnesota’s unique statute of limitations jurisprudence.  He is certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the Minnesota State Bar Association and represents manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and other scientifically-complex products in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Contact: Scott Smith