Reed Smith Partner's Widow Loses Supreme Court Appeal in Suicide Case
A Chicago federal jury awarded $3 million to the widow of lawyer Stewart Dolin after finding GlaxoSmithKline was liable for his suicide. An appeals court overturned that decision, and the justices have denied review.
May 28, 2019 at 10:29 AM
3 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied certiorari review in a high-profile case involving the suicide of a Reed Smith partner in 2010, an outcome that favors GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical company whose antidepressant drug was targeted as a cause of his death.
In 2017, a Chicago federal jury awarded $3 million to the widow of lawyer Stewart Dolin after finding that GlaxoSmithKline was liable for his suicide. He was taking a generic version of the company's drug Paxil.
But last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the damage award, ruling that the case should have been dismissed before trial because the drug company was prevented in 2007 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from adding suicide as a warning on the label for Paxil.
The Supreme Court, without comment, declined to review the appeals court decision.
Because of the FDA's refusal, the Seventh Circuit ruled that federal law preempted Dolin's Illinois law claim that the company should have warned of the risk.
Last week, lawyers for both sides in Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline filed supplemental briefs because of the high court's May 20 decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Albrecht.
Among other things, the Merck ruling established a higher standard for determining whether there is “clear evidence” that the FDA would not have approved a labeling change. The new standard was viewed as beneficial for plaintiffs because it would make it more difficult for drug companies to prove that they were forced by the FDA not to change their drug labels.
Dolin's lawyer filed a brief asserting that the Dolin case should be granted review or sent back to an appeals court for review in light of the justices' Merck decision. But the pharmaceutical company told the court that the Seventh Circuit used the same standard articulated in the Merck ruling, so review was not needed.
Lisa Blatt, a partner at Williams & Connolly, filed the supplemental brief for GlaxoSmithKline, while Bijan Esfandiari of the Los Angeles plaintiffs firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman wrote the supplemental brief on behalf of Wendy Dolin, widow of former Reed Smith partner Stewart Dolin.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Nuclear Option'?: Eli Lilly Taps Big Law Firms in Federal Drug Pricing Dispute
3 minute readBaltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute readDC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250