ZUCHOWICZ V. UNITED STATES
140 F.3d 381 (2nd Cir. 1998)
NATURE OF THE CASE: United States (D) and Zuchowicz (P) appealed from a judgment which
held D liable for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. 1346(b),
2671-2680, and awarded P damages for the death of his wife.
FACTS: Mrs. Zuchowicz (P) filed a prescription for the drug Danocrine at the Naval
Hospital. It erroneously instructed P to take 1600 milligrams per day. This was twice the
maximum recommended dosage. P took the over dose each day for a month. During that time, she
experienced abnormal weight gain, bloating, hot flashes, night sweats, a racing heart, chest
pains, dizziness, headaches, acne, and fatigue. She reduced the dosage in half for a week
and then she was examined by a private physician and was told not to take the drug anymore.
She was diagnosed that summer with pulmonary hypertension. Her life expectancy was 2.5 more
years. P was on the waiting list for a heart lung transplant when she became pregnant. She
gave birth to her son but became ineligible for a heart lung transplant while she was
pregnant. P died the next month. P claimed to have developed primary pulmonary hypertension,
a fatal lung condition as a result of her taking that much medicine. P sued the United
States (D) under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1346(b), 2671-2680. P died
in 1991 and her husband continued the case on behalf of the wife's estate. Expert testimony
revealed that the drug P took was responsible for her fatal disease. The doctor did not rule
out all other possible explanations for P's condition but he did exclude all other causes of
secondary pulmonary hypertension. The doctor also ruled out all previously known drug
related causes of PHH. The doctor then correlated P's good health and the subsequent poor
health and symptoms almost immediately occurring right after P took the overdose of drugs;
this was typical of drug induced PHH. The rarity of PPH, combined with the fact that so few
human beings have ever received such a high dose of Dancing, impacted on the manner in which
P could prove causation. The number of persons who received this type of overdose was simply
too small for P to be able to provide epidemiological, or even anecdotal, evidence linking
PPH to Danocrine overdoses. P based his case primarily on the testimony of two expert
witnesses, Dr. Richard Matt hay, a physician and expert in pulmonary diseases, and Dr.
Randall Tackett, a professor of pharmacology who has published widely in the field of the
effects of drugs on vascular tissues. In rendering a judgment for the plaintiff, the
district court relied heavily on the evidence submitted by these two experts. D challenges
both the admissibility and the sufficiency of their testimony. P got the verdict and D and P
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment