Dawn Bertsch Porter v. Eli Lilly & Co., 291 F. App'x 963 (11th Cir. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Dawn Bertsch Porter v. Eli Lilly & Co., 291 F. App'x 963 (11th Cir. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Karen Leigh Hubbard v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ca11, 2020-12-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karen Leigh Hubbard v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
11th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
It did hold that “[u]nder Georgia law, [the plaintiff] was required to prove that, but for the alleged inadequate warning, [the] decedent’s physician . . . would not have prescribed 29 USCA11 Case: 19-13087 Date Filed: 12/22/2020 Page: 30 of 31 Prozac to decedent.” Porter v. Eli Lilly & Co., 291 F. App’x 963, 964 (11th Cir. 2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dawn Bertsch PORTER, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Leland Langston Porter, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
08-11335.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Sep 9, 2008.
291 F. App'x 963
Arnold Anderson Vickery, Arnold A. Vickery, P.A., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Stephen Mann Brooks, Richard B. North, Jr., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., Atlanta, GA, Andrew See, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Dubina, Hull, Per Curiam, Pryor.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Unpublished
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”). Plaintiff Dawn Bertsch Porter (“Porter”) brought an action against Eli Lilly contending that it was responsible for the suicide of her husband, Leland “Lee” Porter, because Eli Lilly failed to adequately warn of the potential risks between the drug Prozac and suicide. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Eley v. Baptist Hosp. Worth County, Inc., 199 Fed.Appx. 757, 758 (11th Cir.2006).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly granted Eli Lilly’s motion for summary judgment based on Porter’s failure to produce evidence of proximate cause. See Powell v. Harsco Carp., 209 Ga.App. 348, 433 S.E.2d 608, 610 (1993). Under Georgia law, Porter was required to prove that, but for the alleged inadequate warning, Dr. Wolfberg, decedent’s physician, would not have prescribed Prozac to decedent. See Wheat v. Sofamor, S.N.C., 46 F.Supp.2d 1351, 1363 (N.D.Ga.1999). Dr. Wolfberg unequivocally testified that even if he had read the warning that Porter asserts should have been given, he still would have prescribed Prozac to the decedent. Thus, we agree with the district court that Porter cannot prove that Prozac was the proximate cause of decedent’s death.

Because there is no merit to any of the arguments Porter makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Eli Lilly.

AFFIRMED.