“ Plaintiffs bring suit to recover damages for personal injuries and related claims allegedly sustained as a consequence of ingestion of the drug diethylstilbestrol by Rosemary Whitmore Hickson, the mother of plaintiff Patricia Enright and the grandmother of plaintiff Karen Enright.
Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and on the ground the claims are time barred together with various other grounds. “…
ENRIGHT v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 1988335141Misc2d194_1295, September 28, 1988.
… “From the voluminous documents filed and the myriad of issues therein raised, the following primary issues are distilled:
- Does a granddaughter, born more than 20 years after the ingestion of drugs by her grandmother, have a cause of action against the drug manufacturer for birth defects claimed to have resulted from her mother’s injuries which are linked to the drug ingestion?
- Does New York recognize a joint theory of liability whereby all or any drug manufacturers of a harmful drug may be held responsible for injuries sustained from the drug regardless of whether they are identified as the manufacturer of the drug in the individual case?
- Is the revival statute which permits the late filing of the instant lawsuit unconstitutional?
- Does such revival statute permit a derivative claim for loss of consortium?
- Are emotional claims resulting from the birth of a handicapped child cognizable in New York? ” …
…continue reading the full paper ENRIGHT v. ELI LILLY & CO., on Leagle.