Five Dalkon Shield Verdicts Upheld; 2 Women Win $322,500 in Damages

A federal appeals court here has upheld jury verdicts in five Dalkon Shield cases from Eugene, Ore., awarding damages to two women who blamed pelvic infections on use of the device and denying claims of three others.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also revived the suits of two other women who had dropped their suits after a federal judge had refused to bar evidence of their sexual contacts.

The Dalkon Shield, manufactured by A. H. Robins Co., is an interuterine device that has been the target of numerous lawsuits. The appeals court decision involved five women who blamed the device for pelvic inflammatory disease.

A federal court jury in Eugene ruled that the Dalkon Shield was dangerously defective but that Robins had not been proved guilty of negligence or fraud.

The jury awarded damages to only two of the women: Pamela Van Duyn, $147,500, and Terri Johnson, $175,000. The jury ruled in the company’s favor in the suits by the other three women.

Rulings Upheld

In rejecting appeals by both sides last Wednesday, the appellate panel generally upheld rulings on evidence by U.S. District Judge Robert Belloni during the trial.

On one issue, the court said Belloni was within his authority in barring evidence on the pregnancy rates of women who used the Dalkon Shield, offered by the women to prove that the benefits of the device did not outweigh the dangers.

The opinion by Appeals Court Judge Otto Skopil said Belloni was mistaken in ruling that the women had to prove that defects in the Dalkon Shield, as opposed to dangers in IUDs in general, caused their injuries. The error was harmless, Skopil said, because the jury ruled that the device was dangerously defective.

The court also upheld Belloni’s ruling barring punitive damages in the case on the grounds that the jury had found no negligence or fraud. Punitive damages, under Oregon law, require proof of wanton misconduct, which is worse than simple negligence, Skopil said.

On a final issue, the court refused to say whether evidence of a woman’s sexual activity with different partners should be admitted as part of the manufacturer’s claim that this activity, rather than the Dalkon Shield, caused the disease.