Court Reinstates Bendectin Case Damage Award
A federal appeals court reinstated a $750,000-damage award Tuesday against the makers of the anti-morning sickness drug Bendectin, which was taken off the market in 1983 because of mounting litigation over alleged birth defects.
The decision appeared to rejuvenate the stalled litigation campaign against Bendectin, which is the object of between 400 and 500 pending lawsuits alleging it caused babies to be born without arms and legs and with other defects, including protrusion of an infant’s stomach into its chest.
In the action Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overruled a Washington trial judge who set aside a $750,000-jury award made in 1983 against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bendectin’s manufacturer, in the case of a Maryland girl born without parts of one hand and arm. Several months after the verdict was delivered, the judge threw out the award saying evidence presented at the trial did not support the jury finding.
Financial Burden Cited
In the meantime, however, Merrell Dow had announced it was voluntarily withdrawing Bendectin from the market because of the financial burden of liability litigation.
Subsequently, however, the firm won a number of major Bendectin cases, including one in Cincinnati in which 1,100 plaintiffs were involved. The jury found insufficient scientific evidence to show Bendectin caused birth defects. The verdict came after a proposal by Merrell Dow to settle the suit for $120 million collapsed because some plaintiffs would not agree to terms of the settlement.
But Tuesday’s action may pave the way for new court cases. Attorney Barry Nace contended that the appeals court ruling confirms his contention that Bendectin is capable of causing a wide variety of birth defects. Nace said that his Washington law firm has 40 Bendectin cases pending and another 200 under review for possible litigation.
In Cincinnati, a Merrell Dow spokesman said the firm had not had time to analyze the full text of the appeals court ruling. He said that he could not speculate about any possible appeals.
