Federal Court Dismisses Product Liability Claim But Allows Massachusetts Man to “Try and Re-Plead” Two Counts

A Cape Code product liability lawsuit can arise from many different types of products, including prescription medications. Drug-based product liability cases can involve products that were defectively designed or manufactured, but more often they may claim that the manufacturer failed to warn consumers of possible complications from usage of the medication.

Of course, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant is liable for his or her injuries, and this can be a challenge in many cases. If the plaintiff’s complaint does not alleged sufficient facts to support a viable cause of action against the defendant, the trial court may dismiss the plaintiff’s case.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently ruled upon by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the plaintiff was a man who claimed that he suffered serious side effects from a prescription medication and that the defendants, a drug manufacturer and a research and development company, failed to warn him of these possible issues. The drug in question was Risperdal, which is an anti-psychotic drug. The plaintiff, who is an inmate at a correctional institution in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, was purportedly prescribed the drug due to a diagnosis of a personality disorder. According to the plaintiff, the drug caused him to gain weight, have tremors, and develop gynecomastia (increased breast tissue).

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff, in turn, moved to amend his complaint.

The District Court’s Decision

The federal district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend. In so holding, however, the court stated that the plaintiff would be permitted to attempt to re-plead two of his claims, but on the condition that he could assert the specific facts required to show that his claims were viable.

The plaintiff originally filed a two-count complaint, but sought to file an amended, five-count complaint. According to the district court judge, the proposed amended complaint, while “more fulsome,” still failed to state a claim for relief. His complaint was, thus, dismissed, but he was given leave to amend the second and fifth counts, which were core claims he asserted in his original complaint. In so holding, the plaintiff was directed by the court to assert “specific, non-conclusory facts” in support of his failure to warn claim.

Schedule a Free Consultation with a Massachusetts Product Injury Lawyer

If you need to talk to a knowledgeable product liability attorney about an injury or wrongful death that you believe was caused by a dangerous or defective product, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, for an appointment. You can reach us at 888-262-6664. Our offices are located in Hyannis and Plymouth, but, if necessary, we can arrange to come to your home or hospital room for a consultation.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says Patient Who Took Generic Drug Could Have Claim Against Manufacturer of Name Brand Drug for Failure to Warn, if Defendant Acted Recklessly Massachusetts Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Paralyzed Woman’s Claim for Relief from Judgment Due to Alleged Fraud by Vehicle Manufacturer in Prior Product Liability Lawsuit