Bennett et al v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. et al
Filing
65
ORDER denying 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/22/2013. (Sawyer, D.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:10-CV-446-D
JAMES F. BENNETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC. and
ROCHE LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
On October 19, 2010, James Bennett and Veronica Bennett (collectively "plaintiffs"), as
personal representatives for the estate of their son Daniel Bennett, filed this action against
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. and Roche Laboratories, Inc. (collectively "Roche") [D.E. 1]. Plaintiffs
assert four claims under North Carolina law against Roche based on Roche's manufacture and
distribution of the anti-malarial medication Lariam. On June 21, 2011, the court entered an order
that bifurcated discovery into two phases [D.E. 38]. The first discovery phase dealt solely with the
"identification of the brand of anti-malaria medication Daniel Bennett took, if any, in connection
with his deployment to Afghanistan and prior to his death." [D.E. 38] 2. Discovery related to this
issue concluded on February 28, 2012. See [D.E. 53] 2.
On March 29, 2012, Roche filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56 [D.E. 53] and materials in support [D.E. 56-57]. Roche contends that
plaintiffs "have failed to produce any admissible evidence that [Daniel Bennett] ingested Lariam,
rather than a generic equivalent prior to his death" and thus plaintiffs cannot establish a causal link
betweenDanielBennett'sdeathandLariam. [D.E. 53] 2-3. Plaintiffsrespondedinopposition[D.E.
59], and Roche replied [D.E. 60]. Thecourtpermittedplaintiffs tofileasurreply [D.E. 61, 64]. The
court stayed commencement of the second discovery phase pending disposition of Roche's motion
for summary judgment. As explained below, the court denies Roche's motion for summary
judgment.
I.
In October 2008, before deploying to Afghanistan, members ofDaniel Bennett's Marine unit
were issued an anti-malarial drug with mefloquine as its active ingredient. See Martin Decl. [D.E.
59-5]
~
4.
At that time, there were four anti-malarial drugs with mefloquine as the active
ingredient-Roche's Lariam and three different manufacturers' generic versions. See DeVeneziaTobias Aff. [D.E.
56]~
2; [D.E. 57-4]. Lariam doses were packaged in blister packs contained
within a white carton. [D.E. 58-2]; [D.E. 58-3]. The Lariam carton also contained "a Medication
Guide," "a Package Insert," and "an Information Wallet Card." DeVenezia-Tobias Aff. ~ 3; see id.
Exs. 1-3. The generic version that Sandoz, Inc. manufactured also had doses packaged in blister
packs contained within a white carton. [D.E. 60-2] 19-20.
A Marine medical logistics unit ("MEDLOG") was responsible for purchasing medications
from outside vendors and supplying those medications to Marine units stationed at Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina. Hampden Decl. [D.E. 59-3] ~ 2. Records from MEDLOG' s outside vendor indicate
that from 2005 to 2007, MEDLOG received large numbers of units of both Lariam and the Sandoz
generic drug [D.E. 59-4] 1; see Hampden Decl.
~
3. In 2008, shipments of the Sandoz generic
grossly outnumbered shipments ofLariam by 1041 units to 3 units. See [D.E. 59-4] 1. 1 MEDLOG
procedures called for dispensing medications to a unit "on a first in and first out basis; in other
words, the stock of the medicines/drugs which has been in the MEDLOG storeroom the longest is
1
In 2008, an additional seven units ofLariam were shipped to Camp Lejeune, but the base
hospital received this shipment under a separate, non-MEDLOG account. See [D.E. 59-4] 1.
2
issued to the military unit." Hampden Decl. ~ 4.
In October 2008, Navy Corpsman Sheldon Martin was responsible for issuing and
distributing "individual packages of the anti-malarial drug mefloquine to each member" of Daniel
Bennett's unit. Martin Decl. [D.E. 59-5]
~
distribution from the MEDLOG supply. Id.
4. Martin received the anti-malarial medications for
~
5. Martin states that "[e]ach individual package of
mefloquine consisted of a white box with a blister pack inside the white box; the blister pack
contained approximately 25 tablets ofmefloquine." Id.
~
6. Martin, however, "do[es] not recall
what name was on the white box." Id. To receive the anti-malarial medication, the Marines from
Bennett's unit came into a room, where Martin instructed them on the medication and each Marine
completed a health questionnaire. Id.
~
7. Martin then "gave to each Marine, including Daniel
Bennett, one package of mefloquine, i.e., one white box containing the blister pack of mefloquine
tablets." Id. "At [Martin's] direction, each Marine, including Daniel Bennett, took from his blister
pack and ingested one mefloquine tablet at that time." ld. Martin provided final instructions to all
of the Marines from Daniel Bennett's unit that they should take one tablet each week before and
during their deployment to Mghanistan, and that they should take the medication Martin just issued
with them to Mghanistan. Id.
About November 10, 2008, James and Veronica Bennett, along with their son's fiancee,
visited Daniel Bennett at Camp Lejeune. See V. Bennett Dep. [57-11] 30. While in Daniel
Bennett's barracks room, he opened his closet and "all sorts of stuff fell out," including an object
with "silver foil" and "a small white rectangular box." Id. 39--41. At the time, Veronica Bennett was
facing the closet about two to three feet away. Id. 47. Beyond observing that the white box was
about the same size as the silver object, Veronica Bennett does not recall whether the box had been
opened or any markings on the box. Id. 41.
3
Veronica Bennett asked Daniel Bennett about the silver object that had fallen out. Id. 42.
In response, he picked up the object, handed it to Veronica Bennett, and said, "It's Lariam." Id.
Veronica Bennett held the silver object and noticed that it looked "like a blister pack that would have
medication in it." Id. 43. She does not recall whether any of the medication had been removed from
the pack. Id. Before Veronica Bennett responded to Daniel Bennett handing her the blister pack,
he also handed her "a package insert." ld. The insert was a "[t]hin, white paper ... folded very
tightly" with "black lettering." ld. 44. To Veronica Bennett, who worked as a nurse, the paper
appeared consistent with "the type that normally comes in ... medication packs." ld. The paper also
appeared to have been opened before. ld. She unfolded the insert and noticed the word "Lariam,"
as well as ''the hexagon logo for Roche." Id. 44-45. Veronica Bennett estimated that the entire
sequence of events from the items falling out of the closet to Daniel Bennett handing her the silver
object and the paper insert occurred in a matter of"seconds." ld. 49.
Daniel Bennett deployed with his unit to Afghanistan a few days after November 10, 2008.
See id. 57. On January 11, 2009, while in Afghanistan, he committed suicide with his service-issued
sidearm. Autopsy Report. [D.E. 59-6] 1. A toxicology test conducted during the autopsy revealed
the presence of mefloquine in his blood. Id. 6. Neither party possesses any medication bottles or
packages that were in Daniel Bennett's possession when he died. [D.E. 57-3] 8-9.
Plaintiffs claim that Daniel Bennett ingested Lariam before and during his deployment to
Afghanistan and that ingestion of Lariam caused his suicide in January 2009. See Compl. [D .E. 1].
Roche contests liability.
II.
Summary judgment is proper when ''the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
4
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
24 7 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. After the moving party has met this burden, the
nonmoving party "must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (emphasis and
quotation omitted). A genuine dispute about a material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The
court views the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
Plaintiffs assert four separate claims under North Carolina law against Roche, and each claim
sounds in products liability. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1(3) (providing that "'[p]roduct liability
action' includes any action brought for or on account of ... death ... caused by or resulting from
the manufacture, construction, design, formulation, ... preparation, processing, assembly, testing,
listing, certifying, warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising, packaging, or labeling of any
product"); Stoddard v. Wyeth. Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 631, 633 (E.D.N.C. 2009); Moore v. Coachmen
Indus .. Inc., 129 N.C. App. 389, 397, 499 S .E.2d 772, 777 (1998). In pharmaceutical-based products
liability actions, "a brand name pharmaceutical may not be held liable for injuries stemming from
the use of another manufacturer's generic bioequivalent." Stoddard, 630 F. Supp. 2d at 634; see
Foster v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 29 F.3d 165, 170 (4th Cir. 1994). Thus, as part of their causes
of action, plaintiffs must prove a causal connection between Roche's Lariam and Daniel Bennett's
death. See,~. N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 99B-1(3) (referencing causation); Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 514
F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (D.S.C. 1981) (construing North Carolina law); Elledge v. Pepsi Cola Bottling
Co. of Winston-Salem, 252 N.C. 337, 338, 113 S.E.2d 435,436 (1960) (per curiam).
5
Roche contends that plaintiffs have failed to produce sufficient admissible evidence from
which a reasonable jury could fmd the requisite causal link between Daniel Bennett and Lariam as
distinct from one ofthe generic versions ofmefloquine. Defs.' Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [D.E. 57] 1-2.
Roche argues that no records establish that Lariam was distributed to Daniel Bennett nor have
plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence that Daniel Bennett actually ingested Lariam rather than a
generic version of mefloquine. See id. 10-14. Furthermore, Roche argues that Veronica Bennett's
testimony about what her son told her and about the paper she saw on November 10, 2008, is
inadmissible hearsay. See id. 14-18.
When causation is challenged at summary judgment, the Fourth Circuit has "emphasized that
proof of causation must be such as to suggest 'probability' rather than mere 'possibility,' ... to guard
against raw speculation by the fact-finder." Sakaria v. Trans World Airlines, 8 F.3d 164, 172-73
(4th Cir. 1993); see Ross v. FDIC, 625 F.3d 808, 817 (4th Cir. 2010). The proof must consist of
"fact-specific and not merely speculative evidence establishing the cause of [plaintiff's] injury."
Ross, 625 F.3d at 817 (quotations omitted). As with all summary judgment motions, the facts
asserted by either party must be based on admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)( 1)-{2); see, ~.
Toll Bros.. Inc. v. Dryyit Sys .. Inc., 432 F.3d 564, 568--69 (4th Cir. 2005);
Sakari~
8 F.3d at 171.
Here, the admissible evidence offered by the parties narrows the possible anti-malarial
medications that Daniel Bennett ingested to two: Lariam or the Sandoz-manufactured generic.
Both medications are packaged in blister packs contained within a white box. See [D.E. 58-2]
17-20; [D.E. 58-3]; [D.E. 60-2] 19-20. Corpsman Martin distributed to every Marine in Daniel
Bennett's unit mefloquine that was packaged in blister packs contained within a white box. See
Martin Decl. ~ 7. Significant quantities of each medication were delivered to MEDLOG at Camp
Lejeune from 2005 to 2007. See [D.E. 59-4] 1. Although only three units ofLariam were shipped
6
to MEDLOG in 2008 compared to 1041 units of the Sandoz generic, see id., that fact is not
dispositive because MEDLOG's procedure was to dispense medications that had been in the
MEDLOG storeroom the longest. See Hampden Decl.
~
4. Corpsman Martin stated that each
Marine ingested his first pill in front of Martin. Martin DecI.
~
7. Martin then instructed the
Marines in Daniel Bennett's unit to take one tablet a week from that same package throughout the
deployment to Afghanistan. ld. Daniel Bennett's autopsy revealed mefloquine in his blood.
Autopsy Report 6. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a jury could
reasonably infer that Daniel Bennett ingested whatever medication Martin dispensed to him until
his death.
The only evidence that plaintiffs offer directly linking Lariam to Daniel Bennett is Veronica
Bennett's testimony about the events ofNovember 10, 2008. Roche argues that Veronica Bennett's
"testimony as to [Daniel Bennett's] statement 'it's Lariam' is inadmissible hearsay." Defs.' Mem.
Supp. Summ. J. 15. Plaintiffs respond that the statement is admissible under the hearsay exception
in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) for present sense impressions. See Pis.' Mem. Opp'n Summ.
J. [D.E. 58] 10.
Rule 803(1) provides that "[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition,
made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it" is not excluded by the hearsay rule. The
criteria of "subject matter, perception, and time" must be satisfied for the exception to apply. United
States v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694F.2d312, 323 (4th Cir. 1982). As for subject matter, Daniel
Bennett's statement explained an object that had fallen out of his closet a few seconds earlier. The
fact that several objects unexpectedly fell out of his closet when he opened the door would qualify
as "an event." See id. (determining that a telephone call was an event); see also Makuc v. Am.
Honda Motor Co., 835 F.2d 389, 391-92 (1st Cir. 1987). As for perception, Daniel Bennett
7
perceived that objects had just fallen out of his closet when he opened the door. As for timing,
Daniel Bennett identified the silver object that had fallen out ofthe closet within seconds of it falling
and immediately after Veronica Bennett asked about it. A statement's contemporaneity (or nearly
so) to the event is a key guarantee of the statement's reliability.
See,~.
United States v. Green,
556 F.3d 151, 155-56 (3d Cir. 2009); Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d at 323; see also Fed. R.
Evid. 803 advisory committee's note (recognizing ''that in many, if not most, instances precise
contemporaneity is not possible and hence a slight lapse is allowable"). Veronica Bennett's
testimony that the sequence of events was measured in seconds establishes the necessary time
window for the statement to fit within the exception. See V. Bennett Dep. 49; Portsmouth Paving
Corp., 694 F.2d at 323 (determining that a statement made "[w]ithin a matter of no more than a few
seconds [after the event] ... falls squarely within the time strictures ofRule 803(1)"). Thus, Daniel
Bennett's statement that the silver object was Lariam is admissible as a present sense impression
under Ru1e 803(1).
Roche also argues that Veronica Bennett's statements about the paper that Daniel Bennett
handed her immediately after saying the silver object was Lariam are inadmissible hearsay. See
Defs.' Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 16-17. Roche additionally contends that the statements are barred
under the best evidence ru1e. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Plaintiffs respond that the statements are not
hearsay because they are offered not to prove the contents of the paper but to identify an item in
Daniel Bennett's possession. See Pis.' Mem. Opp'n Summ. J. 12.
"Words in their visible embodiment in written form amount to identifying characteristics of
any physical object on which they appear." 4 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick,
Federal Evidence, § 8:21, at 129 (3d ed. 2007). Correspondingly, statements that identify an object
based on words or symbols that appear on the object are not hearsay merely because the means of
8
identification is written.
See,~. Commonwealth v. Harvey, 446 Pa.
Super. 395,401-02, 666 A.2d
1108, 1111-12 (1995) (concluding that testimony about a brand name written on a label was not
hearsay because it was offered only to prove the brand affiliation not the contents of a container).
To the extent plaintiffs offer Veronica Bennett's statements to identify a paper in Daniel Bennett's
possession, the statements are not hearsay and are admissible.
See,~.
United States v. Buchan!m,
604F.3d517, 521-22 (8thCir. 2010). To the extent the bestevidenceruleapplies, the paper appears
to have been lost or destroyed, but not in bad faith. Thus, Veronica Bennett's testimony may
substitute. See Fed. R. Evid. 1004(a), 1007.
Next, Roche argues that Veronica Bennett must be mistaken about what she saw on the
paper. See Defs.' Reply [D.E. 60] 7-8. That argument goes to her credibility, which the court does
not address at summary judgment.
See,~.
Summerlin v. Edgar, 809 F.2d 1034, 1039 (4th Cir.
1987).
Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor, Veronica Bennett's testimony that
Daniel Bennett identified a silver object that fell out of his closet as Lariam and that he possessed
a paper bearing the name Lariam and the Roche logo provides sufficient evidence to bridge the gap
between the white box of medication dispensed to Daniel Bennett by Corpsman Martin and Lariam.
See,~.
Ross, 625 F.3d at 817. Whether a jury will fmd by a preponderance that Daniel Bennett
received and ingested Roche's Lariam is a question for another day. Accordingly, Roche's motion
for summary judgment is denied.
ill.
In sum, Roche's motion for summary judgment as to product identification [D.E. 53] is
DENIED. The parties are DIRECTED to file a proposed timeline for the second phase of discovery
no later than April9, 2013.
9
sp ORDERED. This _.24. day of March 2013.
raA ... ~vu.
c:;eJ
SC.DEVERlli
United States District Judge
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?