2009 Pa. Super. 263 - Simon v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An appellate court will reverse a trial court’s grant or denial of a JNOV only when the appellate court finds an abuse of discretion or an error of law.” Dooner v. DiDonato, 601 Pa. 209 , 971 A.2d 1187, 1193 (2009) (citing Lockwood v. City of Pittsburgh, 561 Pa. 515 , 751 A.2d 1136, 1138 (2000)). “In reviewing the propriety of an order granting or denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we must determine whether there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict.” Birth Center v. St. Paul Companies, Inc., 567 Pa. 386 , 787 A.2d 376, 383 (2001). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, who must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference of fact. Any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in the verdict winner’s favor. Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305 (Pa.Super.2003). A JNOV can be entered upon two bases: (1) where the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and/or, (2) the evidence was such that no two reasonable minds could disagree that the verdict should have been rendered for the movant.... [W]e must consider all of the evidence admitted to decide if there was suffi cient competent evidence to sustain the verdict. Concerning questions of credibility and weight accorded the evidence at trial, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the finder of fact. If any basis exists upon which the jury could have properly made its award, then we must affirm.... A JNOV should be entered only in a clear case. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 121 - Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · 2010 Pa. Super. 124 - Scampone v. Grane Healthcare Co.

2. “[T]he manufacturer of a prescription drug known to be dangerous for its intended use, has a duty to exercise reasonable care to inform those for whose use the article was supplied of the facts which make the product likely to be dangerous. However, the warnings which are required to be given by the manufacturer must be directed to the physician, not the patient-consumer. This is so because it is the duty of the prescribing physician to be fully aware of (1) the characteristics of the drug he is prescribing, (2) the amount of the drug which can be safely administered, and (3) the different medications the patient is taking. It is also the duty of the prescribing physician to advise the patient of any dangers or side effects associated with the use of the drug as well as how and when to take the drug. The warnings which must accompany such drugs are directed to the physician rather than to the patient-consumer as it is for the prescribing physician to use his independent medical judgment, taking into account the data supplied to him from the manufacturer, other medical literature, and any other sources available to him, and weighing that knowledge against the personal medical history of his patient, whether to prescribe a given drug. Thus, in an action against a drug manufacturer based upon inadequate warnings, the issue to be determined is whether the warning, if any, that was given to the prescribing physicians was proper and adequate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 23 - Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

3. “Beagle dogs treated with medroxypro-gesterone acetate [the active ingredient in Provera] developed mammary nodules some of which were malignant. Although nodules occasionally appeared in control animals, they were intermittent in nature, whereas the nodules in the drug-treated animals were larger, more numerous, persistent, and there were some breast malignancies with metastases. Their significance with respect to humans has not been established.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 158 - Coleman v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.