” Plaintiff, whose wife allegedly suffered certain injuries to her reproductive system due to her in utero exposure to the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES), commenced this action against defendants, several manufacturers of DES, asserting a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium. Prior to trial, defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff could not recover for loss of consortium since his wife’s exposure to DES and her resultant injuries occurred before the marriage. That motion was granted, and on appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed.” …
ANDERSON v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 199187679NY2d797_1798, December 18, 1991.
… “Plaintiff’s contention that the Legislature’s enactment of the new discovery Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214-c) dictates a different result here is likewise unavailing. As we recently explained in Enright v Lilly & Co.:
was directed at opening up traditional avenues of recovery by removing a procedural barrier that was unreasonable given the nature of DES injuries. Nothing in the legislation [however] suggests that the Legislature intended to expand the basis for liability
Similarly, we find plaintiff’s reliance on the so-called revival statute to be misplaced. That provision merely temporarily revived certain previously time-barred claims — it did not act to create any new causes of action (see, Metauro v Abbott Labs.)” …
… Read the full paper ANDERSON v. ELI LILLY & CO., on Leagle.