1993 DES Case: Burgess v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Abstracts

… “Plaintiffs Sanda Burgess, Lillian Baker, and Deborah D. Sauer filed this personal injury action against defendant Eli Lilly and Company seeking damages for injuries allegedly resulting from exposure to its drug, Diethylstilbestrol (“DES”). Jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship.

BURGESS v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 19931641995F2d646_11514, June 7, 1993.

The plaintiffs are a mother, Lillian Baker, and her daughters, Sanda Burgess and Deborah D. Sauer. The essence of the daughters’ complaint is that each suffered numerous injuries as a direct result of her mother’s having taken DES, a synthetic hormone, during her pregnancy with each child. Baker was pregnant with Burgess in 1948 and with Sauer in 1951-52. In the ensuing years, Baker experienced vaginal cysts, a uterine polyp, and a breast tumor. Neither Burgess nor Sauer ever developed mature reproductive systems.

In the late 1970’s, the plaintiffs began to explore the possibility that their various medical problems were attributable to Baker’s DES ingestion. A physician informed Sauer in 1982 that her condition could possibly be linked to in utero exposure to DES. The same physician later examined Burgess and offered the same opinion. Burgess ultimately underwent a hysterectomy in 1985, and the post-operative diagnosis indicated that her medical condition may have been caused by in utero exposure to DES. The plaintiffs filed their action in federal district court on May 30, 1986.” …

… read the full paper BURGESS v. ELI LILLY & CO, on Leagle.

More DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources

Have your say ! Share your views