Susan Orrell v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp

Good Law
662 F. App'x 528
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 28, 201614-56845, 15-56484California879 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs in this MDL proceeding filed product liability claims against AstraZene-ca alleging that the drug Nexium caused plaintiffs’ reduced bone mineral density and related fractures. Nexium is an FDA-approved medication marketed and sold by AstraZeneca. Nexium belongs to a class of drugs called proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), which “work by reducing the amount of acid in the stomach.” The plaintiffs designated orthopedic surgeon Dr. Sonny Bal as their general-causation expert, produced his expert report, and made him available for a deposition. The plaintiffs offered no other general-causation evidence. The defendants moved to exclude Dr. Bal’s testimony and for summary judgment.

The district court ruled Dr. Bal’s testimony did not satisfy the standard required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to be relieved entirely from costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

1. “We review the district court’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.