Weil v. Seltzer

873 F.2d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P died unexpectedly at the age of 54 years. P's treating physicians could not explain the cause of his death, nor could they account for a series of recent medical problems which he suffered from prior to his death. An autopsy revealed that D had treated P with steroids. All the symptoms that P suffered from for the past 10 years were linked to long-term use of steroids. D regularly prescribed medication which P was led to believe were antihistamines. It was determined that D had been prescribing a drug called prednisone, which is a steroid. The autopsy, determined that P's cause of death was a saddle block embolus (a type of blood clot), which contained several bone marrow fragments. The autopsy also revealed significant atrophy in Weil's adrenal glands and severe osteoporosis. All of this was linked to long-term steroid use. P filed suit against D. P discovered that the usage was for more than 20 years. D's purchase orders for medication during the years 1980 thru 1984, which were produced during discovery, revealed that he purchased 10,000 tablets of the steroidal drugs. D had purchased more than 1.7 million tablets containing steroids during the 1980-1984 period alone. P contacted eight of D's former patients and learned that each had been treated for many years, and they were prescribed pills which D represented to be antihistamines and decongestants. All of the patients later learned that the pills prescribed by D were in fact, steroids. Finally, a number of boxes and bottles labeled with the names of antihistamines and other non-steroidal medications were found in the possession of D, P, and several of D's former patients. These boxes and bottles were mislabeled because they actually contained cortisone, another type of steroid. At trial, the court admitted testimony from five former patients under Rule 406 in that D prescribed what were thought to be antihistamines but were in fact steroids. The court ruled this to be a habit and was admissible. The verdict went to P, and D appealed.