Zuchowicz v. United States case brief summary
140 F.3d 381 (2nd Cir. 1998)
CASE FACTS
Defendant United States overprescribed danocrine to plaintiff husband's wife, who developed a fatal lung condition known as primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH). Plaintiff and his wife filed a negligence complaint against defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b), 2671-2680. PPH was a rare disease, and few people had received such a high dose of danocrine. Plaintiff relied on the expert opinions of a pharmacology professor and a pulmonary disease expert. As the trier of fact, the lower court held defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's wife's PPH and awarded damages to plaintiff. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency and admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702, and both parties challenged the damage award.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment that defendant United States overprescribed danocrine to plaintiff husband's deceased wife because credible expert testimony proved defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's wife's primary pulmonary hypertension. The damage award was also proper because defendant stipulated to the amount of economic damages from earnings, and the non-economic damage award was within the appropriate range.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
140 F.3d 381 (2nd Cir. 1998)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant United States
appealed and plaintiff husband cross-appealed from a judgment of the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, which
held defendant liable for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, and awarded plaintiff
damages for the death of his wife.CASE FACTS
Defendant United States overprescribed danocrine to plaintiff husband's wife, who developed a fatal lung condition known as primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH). Plaintiff and his wife filed a negligence complaint against defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1346(b), 2671-2680. PPH was a rare disease, and few people had received such a high dose of danocrine. Plaintiff relied on the expert opinions of a pharmacology professor and a pulmonary disease expert. As the trier of fact, the lower court held defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's wife's PPH and awarded damages to plaintiff. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency and admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702, and both parties challenged the damage award.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that there was no discretional abuse in admitting expert testimony that was based on a range of reliable factors and showed that defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's wife's PPH.
- Moreover, the economic damage award was based on a figure stipulated to, and the non-economic damage award was within the appropriate range.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment that defendant United States overprescribed danocrine to plaintiff husband's deceased wife because credible expert testimony proved defendant's negligence caused plaintiff's wife's primary pulmonary hypertension. The damage award was also proper because defendant stipulated to the amount of economic damages from earnings, and the non-economic damage award was within the appropriate range.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment