green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.1 score
“the cold statement that a given relationship is not 'statistically significant' cannot be read to mean there is no probability of a relationship.”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
Thomas v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
But see Brock, 884 F.2d at 167 (denial of rehearing en banc) (dissents of Reavley, Politz, King, Johnson, Williams and Higginbotham, J.J. and separate dissent of Higginbotham, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.
the cold statement that a given relationship is not 'statistically significant' cannot be read to mean there is no probability of a relationship.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Soldo v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.
E.g., DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 791 F.Supp. 1042, 1048-50, 1058-59 (D.N.J.1992) (rejecting plaintiffs experts’ “reanalysis” of epidemiologic studies where original investigators found no statistically-significant association between Bendectin and birth defects), aff'd, without op., 6 F.3d 778 (3d Cir.1993), cert. denied, (1994); Wade-Greaux v. Whitehall Labs., Inc., 874 F.Supp. 1441, 1485 (D.Vi.) (opinions excluded because none of the studies showed a statistically-significant increased risk of the relevant injury due to exposure to the drug at issue), aff'd without op., 46 F.3…
discussed
Cited "see"
Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.
See Brock v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.1989), modified by 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1046 , 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990) (lack of conclusive epidemiological proof was fatal to plaintiffs’ case); and see Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp., 102 F.Sd 194 (5 Cir.1996) (most useful and conclusive evidence is epidemiological studies; numerous reputable epidemiological studies indicate there is not a correlation between ethylene oxide exposure and cancer of the human brain).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Dow Corning Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 312 (5th Cir.1989) (stating that causation cannot properly be inferred from an epidemiological study if "the confidence interval ... renders the study statistically insignificant”), modified on other grounds, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelley v. American Heyer-Schulte Corp.
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir.) *876 (holding that inability of Plaintiff to establish that a drug could cause complained-of birth defects merited judgment as a matter of law), modified, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989); Doddy v. Oxy, 101 F.3d 448, 463 (5th Cir.1996) (holding that, under the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of Texas law, a Plaintiff complaining of an injury must show that the defendant was the cause-in-fact of that injury).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crest Ridge Construction Group, Inc. v. Newcourt Inc.
(2×)
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 308-09 (5th Cir.), modified, by 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1046 , 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990). 2 The Uniform Commercial Code governs the substantive legal issues in this case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sorensen ex rel. Dunbar v. Shaklee Corp.
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 , modified on reh'g, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1046 , 110 S.Ct 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990); Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 857 F.2d 823 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 882 , 110 S.Ct. 218 , 107 L.Ed.2d 171 (1989); Lynch v. Merrell-National Lab., Div. of Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 830 F.2d 1190 (1st Cir.1987). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 310 (in finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony that Bendectin caused child’s birth defects inadmissible, court praised Agent Orange and criticized Ferebee for not' being “willing to analyze the reasoning employed by experts to reach their conclusions”), modified on other grounds, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990); Sterling v. Velsicol Chem.
cited
Cited "see"
Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corporation
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.), modified, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.), modified, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.), modified, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.), reh'g en banc denied, 884 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1989); Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 857 F.2d 823 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 218 , 107 L.Ed.2d 171 (1989); Lynch v. Merrell-National Laboratories, 830 F.2d 1190 (1st Cir 1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.), modified, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc denied, 884 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1989); Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 857 F.2d 823 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 218 , 107 L.Ed.2d 171 (1989); Lynch v. Merrell-National Laboratories, 830 F.2d 1190 (1st Cir 1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Planned Parenthood Minnesota v. Mike Rounds
(2×)
See, e.g., Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 312 (explaining that if studies establish, within an acceptable confidence interval, that those who use a pharmaceutical have a relative risk of greater than 1.0 — that is, an increased risk — of an adverse outcome, those studies might be considered sufficient to support a jury verdict of liability on a failure-to-warn claim), modified on reh’g, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989); 21 C.F.R. § 201.80 (e) (requiring that prescription drug "labeling shall be revised to include a warning as soon as there is reasonable evidence of an asso…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bickel v. Pfizer, Inc.
See also Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 311 , modified 884 F.2d 166 *923 (5th Cir.1989) (rejecting bendectin plaintiffs’ reliance on non-epidemiological causation evidence, finding “the most useful and conclusive type of evidence in a case such as this is epidemiological studies.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rains v. PPG Industries, Inc.
See also Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 311 , modified 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989)(rejecting bendectin plaintiffs’ reliance on non-epidemiological causation evidence, finding “the most useful and conclusive type of evidence in a case such as this is epidemiological studies.”) Dr. Poser in “Multiple Sclerosis: Observations and Reflections — A Personal Memoir” published in the Journal of Neurological Science at 107 to 127 in 1992 stated “Over the past 15 years, more than 10,000 articles about multiple sclerosis (MS) have been published.” There are few c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Keene Corp. v. Hall
See, e.g., Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 313-15 , modified, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1046 , 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990); Lynch v. Merrell-National Laboratories, 830 F.2d 1190, 1195 (1st Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,013 Mary Kathryn Thomas v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc.
See, e.g., Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 308-09 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds on rehearing, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990). 36 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hopkins v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (5th Cir.1989), 884 F.2d 166, 169 (Higginbotham, J., concurring in dissent); R.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb Litigation
See also Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 313 , modified per curiam 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. Monsanto Co.
See also Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 313, modified per curiam 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DeLuca ex rel. DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In re Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, 732 F.Supp. 744 (E.D.Mich.1990); see also Brock, 884 F.2d at 168 (Reavley, J. dissenting, along with five other judges, from the denial of a motion for rehearing in banc and criticizing the majority opinion in Brock).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Amy Deluca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In re Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, 732 F.Supp. 744 (E.D.Mich.1990); see also Brock, 884 F.2d at 168 (Reavley, J. dissenting, along with five other judges, from the denial of a motion for rehearing in banc and criticizing the majority opinion in Brock ). 41 We understand and sympathize with the concerns expressed in Brock over the costs and inequities that flow from inconsistent outcomes in Bendectin cases, the potential effect erroneous verdicts have on the availability of useful medicines, and the wastefulness of continued reconsideration of an identical scientific issue in the co…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mr. & Mrs. Floyd BROCK, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel Brock, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
v.
MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant
88-2311.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 15, 1989.
O.J. Weber, Mehaffey, Weber, Keigh & Gonsoulin, Beaumont, Tex., Robert M. Dato, Dickson, Carlson & Campillo, Santa Monica, Cal., Ramey, Flock, Hutchins, Jef-fus, McClendon & Crawford, P.C., for defendants-appellants., Thomas H. Bleakley, Detroit, Mich., W. James Kronzer, Richard Warren Mithoff, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Garza, Jolly, Jones, Per Curiam.
Cited by 84 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Colorado (1) · District of Columbia (1)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before GARZA, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:Appellees have filed a petition for rehearing en banc with regard to our prior disposition of this case, Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 308 (5th Cir.1989). Treating that petition as a petition for panel rehearing, we hereby modify our prior panel opinion.
At 313, we stated that “[w]e find, in this case, the lack of conclusive epidemiological proof to be fatal to the Brocks’ case.” We hereby change that sentence to read “[w]e find, in this case, the Brocks’ failure to present statistically significant epidemiological proof that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects to be fatal to their case.”
We also change the last two sentences of the second to last paragraph on 315, which read:
Hopefully, our decision will have the effect of encouraging district judges faced with medical and epidemiologic proof in subsequent toxic tort cases to be especially vigilant in scrutinizing the basis, reasoning, and conclusiveness of studies presented by both sides. However, we do not wish this case to stand as a bar to future Bendectin cases in the event that new and conclusive studies emerge which would give a jury a firmer basis on which to determine the issue of causation.
These sentences should read as follows:
Hopefully, our decision will have the effect of encouraging district judges faced with medical and epidemiologic proof in subsequent toxic tort cases to be especially vigilant in scrutinizing the basis, reasoning, and statistical significance of studies presented by both sides. However, we do not wish this case to stand as a bar to future Bendectin cases in the event that new and statistically significant studies emerge which would give a jury a firmer basis on which to determine the issue of causation.
With the exception of the above changes, the panel adheres to its prior opinion in this case.