1989 DES Case: Wood v. Eli Lilly & Co.


Plaintiffs, BETTIE W. WOOD, SUSAN F. WOOD, and JONATHAN H. WOOD, JR., initiated the above-styled cause in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. It was subsequently removed to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship.

Plaintiffs instituted this cause against Defendants, ELI LILLY CO., etc., et al., 11 pharmaceutical companies, for injuries caused by their mother’s alleged ingestion of the drug diethylstilbestrol (hereinafter referred to as “DES”) to prevent a miscarriage during her pregnancies with Plaintiffs. Defendants allegedly comprise a substantial share of the drug companies which, at any time between 1941 and 1971, manufactured, marketed, promoted, or sold DES in the United States.

WOOD v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 19892179723FSupp1456_11981, September 20, 1989.

Plaintiffs have allegedly sustained the following injuries: BETTIE W. WOOD has been diagnosed with reoccurrence of clear adenocarcinoma; SUSAN F. WOOD has sustained chronic vaginal adenosis, a pre-cancerous condition; and JONATHAN H. WOOD, JR. has undergone treatment for testicular embryonal carcinoma.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages against all Defendants in all twelve counts of their Complaint, asserting claims for

  1. “enterprise and/or industry-wide liability” (Count I),
  2. concerted action” (Count II),
  3. market share liability” (Count III),
  4. alternative liability” (Count IV),
  5. “negligence” (Count V),
  6. “strict liability in tort” (Count VI),
  7. “lack of consent” (Count VII),
  8. “breach of express warrantability” (Count VIII),
  9. “breach of implied warranty” (Count IX),
  10. “fraud” (Count X),
  11. “violation of federal law—negligence per se” (Count XI),
  12. and “conspiracy” (Count XII).

Defendants have premised their motions to dismiss on both procedural and substantive grounds. As to the substantive grounds for dismissal, Plaintiffs seek a stay of these proceedings pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in the matter styled Conley v. Boyle Drug Co. Of the procedural and substantive grounds for dismissal, this Court shall limit its discussion to the following questions:

  1. Whether Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Florida statute of repose;
  2. and whether Plaintiffs state a cause of action against Defendants for marketing defective DES where Plaintiffs admittedly cannot establish that a particular defendant was responsible for their injuries.” …

…continue reading the full paper WOOD v. ELI LILLY & CO., on Leagle.

More DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources

Have your say! Share your views