Abstract
“Appeal by plaintiffs Judith Shepherd Armata, Kathleen Anna Maffa-Krailo and Marianne Margaret Alberigi unanimously dismissed and order modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: This appeal arises from an action commenced in New York alleging injuries from plaintiffs’ in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES).”…
ARMATA v. ABBOTT LABS., Leagle, 20011195284AD2d911_1349, June 8, 2001.
…” Supreme Court properly determined that Connecticut law does not recognize non-identification theories of liability in DES litigation and properly granted those parts of defendants’ motion and cross motions seeking to dismiss the complaint insofar as Therrien asserts those theories of liability. In addition, the court denied those parts of defendants’ motion and cross motions with respect to non-identification theories of liability asserted by the Massachusetts plaintiffs on the ground that the law in Massachusetts concerning the viability of those theories of liability remains unsettled. The Massachusetts plaintiffs are not aggrieved by that denial, and thus their contention on appeal regarding a perceived limitation of discovery is not properly before us.” …
… continue reading the full paper ARMATA v. ABBOTT LABS., on Leagle.
More DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources
- Other papers on DES cases and lawsuits.
- Diethylstilbestrol DES studies by topics.