… “For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Plaintiff raises genuine issues of material fact as to when all three elements to the discovery rule were present. Although plaintiff’s infertility injury may have persisted for a decade prior to her filing this suit, the cause of the injury was believed to be endometriosis, unrelated to her DES exposure in utero. Although plaintiff was aware that being exposed to DES may cause health problems, she raises genuine issues of material fact as whether a connection existed between the infertility injury, and the cause of that injury being attributed to DES. As Judge Green put it best, rare will be the case where several elements for a cause of action may not be evident at once.
This is one such case.
REEVES v. ELI LILLY & CO., Leagle, 2005379368FSupp2d11_1376, United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 11, 2005.
Defendant Eli Lilly and Company, as the moving party, did not prove there are no genuine issues of material fact. In examining the record, this court must view all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Shields v. Eli Lilly and Co. directed this court “to consider the cumulative effect of the evidence, and to grant all reasonable inferences to the nonmoving party.” Only after finding no “significant probative” evidence tending to support the complaint can this court grant summary judgment. The record taken as a whole would lead a trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party because all three elements for a cause of action in order to accrue under the District of Columbia statute of limitations were not present until December 2000. Plaintiff filed her claim in January 2003, well within the 3-year time limit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment in accordance with this memorandum opinion. The court will issue a separate order consistent with this opinion.”
Read the full paper REEVES v. ELI LILLY & CO., on Leagle.