… “The plaintiff initially filed a five-count complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the case was subsequently removed to this Court on October 17, 2003. The plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries as a result of “embryonic exposure” to DES. According to the plaintiff, her mother was prescribed and took DES while pregnant with the plaintiff in 1969. The Plaintiff alleges that the DES her mother ingested, the same DES which allegedly caused her injuries, was manufactured by the defendant.
DUNSETH v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 2005501404FSupp2d97_1487, United States District Court, District of Columbia, September 16, 2005.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to prove that it was the defendant’s product that caused her harm. Defendant Eli Lilly and Company’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has provided no medical or pharmacy records indicating that the defendant produced the DES in question here. The defendant also contends that at least sixty other manufacturers produced the same drug that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant argues that the description provided by the plaintiff’s mother of a small, white pill with a cross score on it fails to distinguish a DES pill made by the defendant from other DES products whose physical appearance fits the same description. The defendant further argues that even if one of the defendant’s products, in some dosage, matches the description given by the plaintiff’s mother, it would be impermissible to allow a jury to find for the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law if she cannot identify the brand of DES her mother ingested while pregnant to the exclusion of other DES products on the market at that time.” …
… Read the full paper DUNSETH v. ELI LILLY & CO., on Leagle.